T60

V
T
T

T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y

6
0

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

f
u
t
u
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

w
a
s
t
e

r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g

ISBN 978-951-38-7892-4 (soft back ed.)
ISBN 978-951-38-7893-1 (URL: http://www.vtt./publications/index.jsp)
ISSN-L 2242-1211
ISSN 2242-1211 (soft back ed.)
ISSN 2242-122X (URL: http://www.vtt./publications/index.jsp)
Directions of future developments in waste
recycling

This publication summarises the results and conclusions of the research
project Advanced Solutions for Recycling of Complex and New
Materials. The aim of the project has been to create an understanding
of the future development needs of waste recycling and management
by conducting an in-depth analysis of ve selected waste value chains.
The chains analysed were: construction and demolition (C&D) waste,
commercial and industrial waste (C&I), household waste / municipal
solid waste (MSW), waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
and end-of-life vehicles (ELV).
Directions of future
developments in waste
recycling
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
S
C
I
E
N
C
E
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
H
I
G
H
L
I
G
H T S
60

VTT TECHNOLOGY 60
recycling

Malin Meinander (Ed.) Ulla-Maija Mroueh (Ed.), John Bacher,
Jutta Laine-Ylijoki, Margareta Wahlstrm, Johannes Jermakka,
Nina Teirasvuo & Hannele Kuosa
VTT
Maria Trn, Johanna Laaksonen, Jukka Heiskanen, Juha
Kaila & Hanna Vanhanen
Aalto University
Helena Dahlbo, Kaarina Saramki, Timo Jouttijrvi, Tuomas
Mattila, Risto Retkin, Pirke Suoheimo, Katja Lhtinen,
Susanna Sironen, Jaana Sorvari & Tuuli Myllymaa
Finnish Environment Institute
Jouni Havukainen, Mika Horttanainen & Mika Luoranen
Lappeenranta University of Technology

ISBN 978-951-38-7893-1 (URL: http://www.vtt.fi/publications/index.jsp)
ISSN 2242-122X (URL: http://www.vtt.fi/publications/index.jsp)
Copyright VTT 2012

JULKAISIJA UTGIVARE PUBLISHER
VTT
PL 1000 (Tekniikantie 4 A, Espoo)
02044 VTT
Puh. 020 722 111, faksi 020 722 7001
VTT
PB 1000 (Tekniikantie 4 A, Esbo)
FI-02044 VTT
Tfn +358 20 722 111, telefax +358 20 722 7001
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
P.O. Box 1000 (Tekniikantie 4 A, Espoo)
FI-02044 VTT, Finland
Tel. +358 20 722 111, fax + 358 20 722 7001

3
Directions of future developments in waste recycling
Kestvn kierrtyksen tulevaisuuden kehityssuuntia. Malin Meinander (ed.), Ulla-Maija
Mroueh (ed.), John Bacher, Jutta Laine-Ylijoki, Margareta Wahlstrm, Johannes Jer-
makka, Nina Teirasvuo, Hannele Kuosa, Maria Trn, Johanna Laaksonen, Jukka Heis-
kanen, Juha Kaila, Hanna Vanhanen, Helena Dahlbo, Kaarina Saramki, Timo Joutti-
jrvi, Tuomas Mattila, Risto Retkin, Pirke Suoheimo, Katja Lhtinen, Susanna Sironen,
Jaana Sorvari, Tuuli Myllymaa, Jouni Havukainen, Mika Horttanainen & Mika Luora-
nen. Espoo 2012. VTT Technology 60. 86 p. + app. 80 p.
Abstract
This publication summarises the results and conclusions of the research project
Advanced Solutions for Recycling of Complex and New Materials. The aim of the
project has been to create an understanding of the future development needs of
waste recycling and management by conducting an in-depth analysis of five se-
lected waste value chains. The chains analysed were:
construction and demolition (C&D) waste
commercial and industrial waste (C&I)
household waste / municipal solid waste (MSW)
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
end-of-life vehicles (ELV).
The main emphasis was on the analysis of the five waste chains including tech-
nologies, material utilisation and losses, as well as environmental and economic
analyses of the current systems. The current and future requirements of the Finn-
ish operational and business environment were also studied. The findings of the
project are to be applicable in the planning and implementation of future develop-
ment projects, as well as in decision making by various actors of the sector.
The main methodologies used in this study were literature reviews, data collec-
tion, interviews and waste chain modelling; material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle
assessment (LCA) focusing on climate impacts and resource use, and life cycle
cost analysis (LCC). Value formation was studied in WEEE and ELV chains.
The operational environment in the waste management chains is affected by
various environmental and other policies and regulations, demand and supply as
well as raw material prices. Cultural aspects and peoples attitudes are also im-
portant, especially because the waste market will be increasingly global.
The rising prices of raw materials and stricter recycling targets are expected to
affect product design and development of innovations in the field. Increased recy-
cling calls for systemic thinking and improved waste chain management with more
efficient processes and technologies. Integrated modelling concepts and analysis
of future scenarios are needed for assessment of the economic viability of the
recycling solutions. For example, development of new presorting and pretreatment
concepts could improve both the quality and quantity of products. Management of
the entire treatment chain calls for real-time monitoring methods integrated with
on-line quality control.

Keywords waste chain management, material flow analysis, LCA, commercial and
industrial waste, municipal waste, construction and demolition waste,
waste electrical and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles, future
development

4
Kestvn kierrtyksen tulevaisuuden kehityssuuntia
Directions of future development in waste recycling. Malin Meinander (ed.), Ulla-Maija Mroueh
(ed.), John Bacher, Jutta Laine-Ylijoki, Margareta Wahlstrm, Johannes Jermakka, Nina
Teirasvuo, Hannele Kuosa, Maria Trn, Johanna Laaksonen, Jukka Heiskanen, Juha Kaila,
Hanna Vanhanen, Helena Dahlbo, Kaarina Saramki, Timo Jouttijrvi, Tuomas Mattila, Risto
Retkin, Pirke Suoheimo, Katja Lhtinen, Susanna Sironen, Jaana Sorvari, Tuuli Myllymaa,
Jouni Havukainen, Mika Horttanainen & Mika Luoranen. Espoo 2012. VTT Technology 60. 86 s.
+ liitt. 80 s.
Tiivistelm
Tss julkaisussa on esitetty tutkimusprojektin Advanced Solutions for Recycling of
Complex and New Materials tuloksia ja johtoptksi. Hankkeen tavoitteena oli luoda
ksitys jtehuollon tulevaisuuden kehitystarpeista syventymll viiteen jteketjuun:
rakennus- ja purkujte (C&D)
kaupan ja teollisuuden jtteet (C&I)
kotitalousjte / yhdyskuntajte (MSW)
shk- ja elektroniikkaromu, SER (WEEE)
romuautot (ELV).
Tutkimuksessa analysoitiin Suomen jte- ja kierrtysalan arvoketjuja ja toimintaymp-
rist tavoitteena luoda ymmrryst tulevaisuuden kehittmistarpeista. Valittuja arvo-
ketjuja tarkasteltiin erityisesti seuraavista nkkulmista: teknologiat, materiaalien hy-
dyntmisasteet ja materiaalihvit sek merkittvimmt ympristvaikutukset ja talou-
delliset vaikutukset. Tuloksia voidaan hydynt tulevaisuuden suunnittelu- ja kehitys-
projekteissa. Ne tukevat mys jte- ja kierrtysalan ptksentekoa.
Tutkimusmenetelmin kytettiin kirjallisuusselvityksi, tiedonlouhintaa, haastatteluja
sek arvoketjujen mallinnusmenetelmi: materiaalivirta-analyysit, elinkaarianalyysit
keskittyen erityisesti ilmastovaikutuksiin ja luonnonvarojen kyttn sek elinkaarikus-
tannusten arviointi esimerkkitapauksessa. Lisksi tarkasteltiin arvonmuodostusta SER-
ja WEEE-ketjuissa.
Kierrtys- ja jtehuoltoalan toimintaympristn vaikuttavat erityisesti lainsdnt,
kysynnn ja tarjonnan kehittyminen sek materiaalien ja energian hinnat. Mys kulttuu-
ri- ja asenneymprist on trke, varsinkin siksi, ett alan markkinat ovat yh enem-
mn maailmanlaajuisia. Kuten muillakin aloilla, sidosryhmien merkitys on kasvamassa.
Raaka-aineiden hintojen nousun ja tiukkenevien kierrtystavoitteiden voidaan tule-
vaisuudessa odottaa johtavan uusien innovaatioiden syntymiseen ja kyttnottoon
sek vhitellen kierrtyst tukevien tuotesuunnittelumenetelmien kehitykseen. Kierr-
tyksen tehostaminen edellytt systeemist ajattelua, jtevirtojen hallintamenetelmien
kehittmist sek tehokkaampia erottelu- ja lajitteluteknologioita koko kerys- ja ksitte-
lyketjuun. Taloudellisten edellytysten arviointiin tarvitaan eri nkkulmia yhdistvi
mallinnuskonsepteja ja tulevaisuuden skenaarioiden tarkastelua. Tuotteiden saantoa ja
laatua voidaan parantaa mm. kehittmll uusia konsepteja esilajittelun ja -erottelun
tehostamiseen. Koko ksittelyketjun ja tuotteen laadun hallitsemiseksi tarvitaan eri
virtojen reaaliaikaista monitorointia yhdistettyn online-laadunvalvontamenetelmiin.
Asiasanat waste chain management, material flow analysis, LCA, commercial and indus-
trial waste, municipal waste, construction and demolition waste, waste electrical
and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles, future development

5
Preface
project was to analyse the current situation of selected waste value chains as well
as the demands on the current and future operational environment. Based on the
results, an analysis of challenges and development needs in these value chains
was made, and future development opportunities identified.
The waste value chains analysed were: Recycling and utilisation of construction
and demolition (C&D) waste; Recycling and utilisation of commercial and industrial
waste (C&I); Recycling and utilisation of household waste / municipal solid waste
(MSW); Recovery of valuable materials from waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE); and Recycling and utilisation of End-of-Life vehicles (ELV).
The project produced several research reports which are listed in Appendix 1.
The project was funded by Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation) a group of companies and participating research institutes. The re-
search partners and their main duties in the project were:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Coordinator for the project
with main responsibility for the analysis of MSW and C&D value chains
Aalto University School of Science and Technology Lahti Center
(AALTO) with main responsibility for the WEEE, C&I and ELV value
chains
The Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), responsible for the analysis of
strategies and legislation, Life cycle analysis (LCA and LCC), BAT analy-
sis, and assessment of hazardous substances
Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT), responsible for the Waste
to Energy opportunities in the value chains mentioned above.
The Steering Group for the project consisted of the following people: Antero Vat-
tulainen, Kuusakoski Oy; Toni Andersson, Ekokem Oy Ab; Tuomo Joutsenoja, Ru-
dus Oy; Ilkka Kojo, Outotec Oy; Markku Lehtokari, Turun Seudun Jtehuolto Oy;
Marko Mkikyr, Ruukki Metals Oy, Pekka Pouttu, Kiertokapula Oy; Arto Ryhnen,
Jtekukko Oy, Jukka Ylijoki, Metso Automation Oy; Asko Vesanto, Tekes; Jatta
Jussila, CLEEN Oy; Eva Hkk-Rnnholm, VTT; Juha Kaila, Aalto University; Tuuli

6
Myllymaa, Finnish Environment Institute; Mika Horttanainen, Lappeenranta Universi-
ty of Technology; and Ulla-Maija Mroueh, VTT, secretary.
The research group would like to express their gratitude to the steering group
and other representatives of the companies for their support during the project, as
well as collaboration in the definition of waste value chains and delivery of process
data needed in the analysis.

7
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................... 3
Tiivistelm ....................................................................................................... 4
Preface ............................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 9
2. Operational environment ........................................................................ 11
2.1 Policies and legislation ...................................................................... 11
2.2 Business environment....................................................................... 13
3. Analysis of selected waste chains .......................................................... 18
3.1 Waste chains and analysis methods .................................................. 18
3.1.1 Features of the selected operational chains .............................. 20
3.1.2 Properties of selected waste chains .......................................... 23
3.1.3 Current utilisation and losses of material potential in the
selected waste chains .............................................................. 42
3.1.4 Energy recovery ....................................................................... 49
3.1.5 Problems and challenges arising during the MFA analysis ......... 52
3.2 Aspects of value formation ................................................................ 54
3.3 Life cycle and BAT aspects of waste chains....................................... 55
3.3.1 Life cycle climate change impacts of the selected waste chains . 55
3.3.2 The use of life cycle costing in evaluating waste chains ............. 57
3.3.3 BAT aspects in evaluating waste chains ................................... 59
3.4 Monitoring ........................................................................................ 59
3.4.1 The current situation in Finland ................................................. 59
3.4.2 Summary of the identification methods ..................................... 60
3.4.3 Development needs ................................................................. 61
4. Towards resource-efficient recycling ..................................................... 63
4.1 Targets............................................................................................. 63
4.2 Drivers for change ............................................................................ 64
4.2.1 Megatrends ............................................................................. 64
4.2.2 Specific drivers and trends for C&D and WEEE waste chains .... 67

8
4.2.3 WEEE ..................................................................................... 67
4.3 Challenges and development opportunities ....................................... 69
4.3.1 Waste composition and data quality .......................................... 69
4.3.2 Waste management processes ................................................ 69
4.3.3 Key materials for increasing resource efficiency ........................ 71
4.3.4 Markets for recovered materials and products ........................... 71
4.3.5 Markets for technologies and services ...................................... 72
5. Summary and conclusions ..................................................................... 74
5.1 Background and approach of the study.............................................. 74
5.2 Development needs and opportunities ............................................... 75
5.3 Material flow specific development needs .......................................... 77
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 78
References ..................................................................................................... 79

Appendices
Appendix 1: Analysis reports produced during the project
Appendix 2: Methodology of MFA and building it with STAN 2.0 software
Appendix 3: Detailed C&D waste chain
Appendix 4: Detailed C&I waste chain
Appendix 5: Detailed MSW chain
Appendix 6: Detailed WEEE chain
Appendix 7: Detailed ELV chain
1. Introduction

9
1. Introduction
Waste management is in a state of rapid change. In developed countries the tran-
sition from landfill disposal to energy and material recovery is already in full swing,
and the current trend is towards more efficient material recovery and recycling
processes. For example, according to the 'Roadmap to a resource-efficient Eu-
rope' (EC COM (2011) 571 Final) by 2020 waste will be managed as a resource.
Recycling and reuse of waste will be economically attractive for public and private
actors, energy recovery is limited to non-recyclable materials and landfilling is
virtually eliminated.
Realization of these targets requires extensive development at both a techno-
logical and system level. One of the biggest challenges is the growing complexity
of the products and related waste flows which makes recycling even more compli-
cated nowadays. On the other hand, the waste management market in developing
countries is also growing rapidly, and at least some of these countries have the
possibility and the will to introduce advanced technologies. The radical changes in
the business environment are an obvious opportunity for companies which are
able to be in the forefront of the development of new technologies and services
adapted to the demands of a changing business environment.
The aim of the project has been to create an understanding of the future devel-
opment needs of waste management by conducting an in-depth analysis of se-
lected waste management chains, beginning with waste generation and ending
with the production of products and materials on the market. The selection of the
waste management chains for analysis was based on the business expectations
from the perspective of Finnish recycling and waste management actors. Both the
current situation and especially future international and domestic business poten-
tial were considered. The waste management chains analysed are Construction
and demolition waste (C&D), Commercial and industrial waste (C&I), Municipal
solid waste (MSW), Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and End-
of-Life vehicles (ELV).
A systematic modelling approach was used, which has resulted in identification
and definition of the most significant development goals of each chain. One of the
targets of the project has been to create a basis for a research programme or
research projects commercialising the research findings.
Several reports have been produced during the project, and the aim of this final
report is to combine and summarize all these reports. A list of all reports produced

1. Introduction

10
during the project can be found in Appendix 1. The analysis reports can be ob-
tained upon request from the responsible research organisation. In addition to the
analysis reports, several scientific publications are planned, based on the results
of the project. Furthermore, many conference presentations have been held and
are planned based on the findings of the NeReMa project.
The findings of the project are to be applicable in the planning and implementa-
tion of future development projects, as well as in the decision-making of various
actors in the recycling and waste management sector. Both this project and the
future research programme or projects generated by it enable the development of
high-level competence as well as sustainable technologies, products and services
to meet future market requirements. Thus they promote the competitiveness of the
Finnish recycling industry on the international and domestic market.
This report includes an introduction to the Finnish operational and business en-
vironment for waste companies. The waste chains are presented, as are also the
analysis results of the NeReMa project, including technologies, material utilisation
and losses, as well as environmental and economic analyses of the current sys-
tems. Furthermore, the research group presents their observations on the pro-
spects for future waste management, drivers and future opportunities for the waste
management companies.
2. Operational environment

11
2.1 Policies and legislation
The waste management chains and the actors along the chain are affected by
various environmental and other policies and regulations. Future drivers and
trends have been identified at the global, EU and national level. The main focus in
this chapter is on waste legislation. As Finnish waste legislation is being revised at
the time of writing of this report, some issues are discussed at a general level.
Policies on material resources are at an early stage of development; however,
the already comprehensive set of EU waste policies has been further developed in
the past few years. The Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of
Waste and the revised Waste Framework Directive (EU, 2008a) are important
milestones. The Mining Waste Directive (EU, 2006a), the Batteries Directive (EU,
2006b), the European Commission's Communication on future steps in bio-waste
management in the European Union (EU, 2010) and the European Commission's
Communication on Better Ship Dismantling (EU, 2008b) were issued to close
loopholes in the Waste Policy Framework concerning these specific wastes. A
number of directives tackling specific waste streams have reached the phase of
practical implementation in the member states the WEEE Directive (EU, 2003),
the End-of-life Vehicles Directive (EU, 2000) and the Landfill Directive (EU, 1999)
in the case of biodegradable municipal wastes.
The Waste Framework Directive (EU, 2008) establishes a five-level waste hier-
archy, at the top of which is prevention. The order of priority in waste prevention
and management legislation and policy is: a) prevention; b) preparing for re-use;
c) recycling; d) other recovery, e.g. energy recovery, and e) disposal.
Finnish waste legislation is largely based on EU legislation. The new waste law
and the waste decree which specifies some issues in the waste act came into
force on May 2012. Important issues included in the reformation of the Finnish
waste legislation are:
Producers responsibilities in the waste management of packaging are extend-
ed. The producer will be responsible for the waste management of packages and
its costs. Minimum requirements for the number of collection points for consumers
in order to guarantee a sufficient level of service in the whole country are to be
defined later by a decree.


12
The new Waste Act proposes an expanded responsibility for waste accounting
(118119). Producers with at least 100 tonnes of waste must be aware of waste
amounts from production and products. Reporting is not required. The waste ac-
counting may indirectly encourage innovations in the field of recycling through
enhanced knowledge of waste streams and material efficiency.
End of Waste criteria under which waste could cease to be waste. The purpose
of defining end of waste criteria is to facilitate and promote recycling, ensuring a
high level of environmental protection, reducing the consumption of natural re-
sources and the amount of waste sent for disposal. End of waste criteria will be
applicable to specific waste streams. So far the criteria for iron, steel and alumini-
um scrap have been adopted (Council Regulation EU No 333/2011). Criteria for
scrap copper, waste paper, waste glass, biowaste and plastic waste are under
preparation. EU regulations are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in
Member States.
Ban on landfilling organic wastes to be included in the government decree on
landfill sites is being prepared by the Ministry of Environment. Organic waste is
that able to decompose biologically or thermally such as biodegradable waste and
plastic and rubber waste. The ban is supposed to apply from 2016. The decree will
define limit values for organic carbon in waste, and waste tests are required. The
ban means that waste management companies will be required either to recycle
organic waste, or to utilize it as an energy source, either by burning it directly, or
using it to produce methane through decomposition.
Tax on waste is governed by the new Waste Tax Act (1126/2010) which came
into force from the beginning of the 2011. Tax on waste is levied on waste depos-
ited at public and private landfill sites. The tax is charged at a rate of EUR 40 per
tonne and from the year 2013 it will be EUR 50 per tonne. (Waste Tax Act
1126/2010)
The new waste act specifies the role of material efficiency in environmental
permits. Environmental permits will contain necessary regulations on wastes and
reduction of their quantity and harmfulness. In addition, efficiency in the use of
materials must be taken into account as needed. The Ministry of Environment will
publish guidelines to promote material efficiency in environmental permits.


13

2.2 Business environment
In 2003 the revenue of the Finnish waste management sector was approximately
MEUR 400, of which 45% and 55% came from the waste management and recy-
cling sectors respectively. The two main services of the waste management sector
are collection and treatment. Although the waste volumes are not forecast to in-
crease in Finland, on-site sorting and recycling is to increase. As seen in many
European countries with maturing waste management, the most successful com-
panies are focusing on an improved service level and holistic waste management

14
solutions. In recent years Finnish recycling companies have expanded their activi-
ties abroad, mainly to neighbouring countries, but also to e.g. China. (Huhtinen et
al., 2007.)
European waste volumes are continuously increasing, Frost & Sullivan (2010)
estimate that the MSW generation will increase by 25% between 2005 and 2020 in
EU-25. However, the growth rate is slowly diminishing and soon the waste vol-
umes may also diminish. The value of the waste management market will still
continue to increase, both due to increasing recycling and recovery rates, but also
due to the increased service supply and role of technology providers as well as the
increasing market value of recyclables (Frost & Sullivan, 2006).
Globally, the waste management market will grow, especially in the emerging
and developing countries of Asia, South America and later on also in Africa, where
the simultaneous growth of population and GDP lead to a strongly increasing
amount of waste. According to the estimates of the World Bank, the production of
municipal waste in 2007 alone was 3.8 million tonnes per day in developing coun-
tries and 1.4 million tonnes per day in developed countries (UNRDC, 2009). The
standard of waste management is related to the GDP/person, enabling the devel-
opment of waste infrastructure and the introduction of more advanced technolo-
gies.
As certain raw materials are becoming scarcer, while energy and fuel prices are
increasing, production costs are increasing. Often the production and use of re-
covered raw materials requires a smaller energy input than the production and use
of virgin raw material. As also the prices of recovered materials are often low,
manufacturing industry is increasingly favouring the replacement of virgin raw
materials with recovered materials. In the future this trend is forecast to grow
stronger, further increasing the benefits of on-site separation and recycling.
Waste is increasingly becoming a good which is traded around the world. The
international waste trade is increasing constantly; in 2005, waste import to Finland
was approximately 0.8 Mt and export 1 Mt (SYKE, 2003; 2005). The market driv-
ers of demand and prices of recyclables vary substantially between different mate-
rials. The market prices of recyclables in general follow the world market prices of
corresponding virgin raw materials. The volatility of market prices of recyclables
has, however, always been bigger compared with the prices of virgin raw materi-
als. The supply-demand is one of the most important factors determining the price
level. Price alternations are commonly interconnected with alternations in supply,
although other factors, such as politics and instabilities, as well as oil and energy
prices, tend to impact the market prices of most goods. The recycling market is,
however, far from perfect. Several market inefficiencies have been identified which
affect both the demand and the price of recyclables, as described in Table 1.

15
Table 1. Potential sources of recyclables market inefficiency (OECD, 2006).

The increasing value and importance of recycling in Europe are related to the
following factors (Fisher et al., 2011):
The unit prices have increased in current prices for a decade until the cri-
sis at the end of 2008, and they have recovered since then.
The booming Asian economy has needed more recyclables. The increas-
ing Asian demand has not only been positive for the unit prices of the re-
cyclables, it has also consumed larger and larger amounts of recyclables
generated in the EU.
Different EU directives that specify an increasing percentage of specific
waste types to be recycled in EU Member States have led to an increas-
ing amount of recyclables being put on the market.
With the exception of metal scrap and fibres (paper and cardboard), most of the
supply in recyclables in Europe is regulation-driven. Regulation affects the supply
in two different ways. The key mechanisms are the mandatory collection and recy-
cling requirements either directly concerning specified materials or indirectly
through extended producer responsibility. Another mechanism is the landfill ban
which has already been adopted in several European countries, and which aims to
force materials higher in the waste hierarchy and thus also supports material recy-
cling.

Causes of market inefficiency Explanation
Transaction costs in secondary materi al markets Arises from the diffuse and i rregul ar nature of
waste generati on. May al so arise from the
heterogeneous nature of secondary materi als.
Information fai l ures rel ated to waste quali ty Arises from the difficul ty for buyers to detect waste
quali ty, and the rel ati ve ease wi th which sel l ers
can conceal i nferi or quali ty waste.
Consumpti on external i ti es and ri sk aversi on Percei ved costs associ ated with the quali ty of final
goods derived from secondary materi al s relati ve
to those derived from vi rgin materi al s.
Technol ogi cal externali ti es related to products Compl exi ty of recycli ng due the techni cal
characteri sti cs of the recyclabl e materi al and
products from whi ch secondary materi al s are
derived.
Market power in pri mary and secondary markets Substi tution between primary and recycl able
materials may be restricted due to imperfect
competiti on and strategi c behavi or on the part of
fi rms.

16

The global markets for scrap metals
Scrap metal can be recycled into the same quality new metal, and the energy consump-
tion of the recycling process is significantly lower than of the virgin material. Therefore, a
significant part of the worlds metals are produced from recycled waste materials. The
scrap metal market follows the dynamics of the global metal markets; the main fluctua-
tions are due to changes in supply and demand. It is not only the production rate control-
ling supply, but also existing and future stocks. The price correlates with the future
prospects of availability and moves a little ahead of actual availability. As the production
of metal from mining of ore to the final raw material is quite energy-intensive, metal
prices correlate with energy prices. The central factors affecting the supply an d demand
and market prices are illustrated in the figure. (Korppinen, 2010; Heiskanen, 2009)

The central factors affecting the supply, demand and market prices of metals. The major
economies like the USA, China and Japan have a great influence on global metal mar-
ket prices. The impact of the Chinese market is continuously growing on behalf of the
US market. Lately the Chinese markets have been responsible for up to 90% of total
market growth. (Korppinen, 2010)

17

The global markets for plastic waste
Since 1950 the annual global plastic production has increased on average approx. 10%.
Increased consumption impacts the demand for both virgin and recovered raw materials,
while higher energy and oil prices will increase the price of virgin plastic. Plastic recy-
cling has grown in Europe and China during the last decade; in Europe mainly due to the
implementation of stricter waste legislation and in China due to the need for a cheap
plastic raw material. Plastic recycling is quite a labour-intensive process, and China is a
major plastic recycler due to its low labour costs. (WRAP, 2006)
Most of the plastic waste is not suitable for recycling as it is dirty and contains several
different materials and combinations. Cleaning of waste plastic is commonly a costly
process, and separation of different plastic types is labour-intensive if it is even possible.
Thus, plastics waste is mainly used for energy recovery. Sorted PET bottles are homo-
geneous and quite clean; thus, PET bottles make up the majority of the recycled house-
hold plastic waste. Sorted C&I plastic waste can also have an adequate quality for recy-
cling. (WRAP, 2006)
Plastic waste exports to China
The EU exports plenty of plastic waste to China, which has an increasing demand for
plastic waste and is a major player on the waste plastics market; WRAP (2006) esti-
mates that 70% of the global waste plastics end up in China. Currently the Chinese
import of plastic waste is increasing by 500-1,000 kt annually. The global waste plastic
market is illustrated in the Figure below, showing that the majority of the global plastic
waste ends up in China. The global markets for recycled plastic waste is highly depend-
ent on Chinese legislation; currently it is possible to export unwashed plastic waste to
China, but if Chinese legislation requires the plastic to be washed before export the price
of the European waste plastic will increase significantly due to the higher European
labour costs, eliminating exports to China.

The global waste plastics market; a lot of the waste plastics is transported through Hong
Kong to China, mainly due to the easier customs procedures of Hong Kong. (WRAP,
2006)
3. Analysis of selected waste chains

18
3.1 Waste chains and analysis methods
The waste chains analysed were:
Construction and demolition waste (C&D) is all waste other than regu-
lar household waste produced at a construction site. It neither includes
waste reused directly on site without any processing nor waste generated
by the construction industry off-site.
Commercial and industrial waste (C&I) is the waste produced by insti-
tutions, commerce and industry, excluding production and process waste,
and which is comparable to MSW. It is often collected and treated, and
usually reported together with MSW.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) covers waste from households, garden
waste, street sweepings, and the contents of litter containers, as well as
similar commercial and industrial waste.
Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) originates from
households and industry, it is a very versatile waste fraction and includes
a vast variety of different electrical and electronic items.
End-of-Life vehicles (ELV) is motor vehicles which have reached the
end of their useful lives and are collected for controlled dismantling.
Each waste chain analysis consisted of seven subtasks:
Definition of the waste operational chain and identification of future trends
and requirements.
Market analysis of waste management and recycling technologies, sys-
tems and services, recycled waste fractions and other marketable prod-
ucts as well as the compilation of economic data.
Collection of data on waste generation and composition, current recycling
and quality demands set by legislation, end-users, etc.

19
Technical analysis, including current technologies and processes, in each
phase of the waste chain, and a more exact schematic description of the
waste chain. The challenges of the current system were pointed out, as
well.
Formulation and definition of base case (current situation) in detail, mate-
rial flow analysis (MFA), preliminary LCA and cost analysis of the base
case.
Comparison of the waste chain (base case) with relevant BREF docu-
ments and other BAT information as well as a deeper BAT analysis of
one waste chain.
Recommendations and insights for further development initiatives and
research goals of the waste chains studied.
The most important methods used in the waste chain analysis were:
Literature review, data collection and interviews for the purpose of mak-
ing an accurate description of the waste chain and the operational envi-
ronment.
Material flow analysis (MFA), a descriptive approach used for a systemat-
ic assessment of material flows and stocks in waste operational chains.
The level of detail varied depending on the target level of the chain anal-
ysis and the availability of data. In most cases the process concepts had
to be simplified because of the lack of data at unit process level. MFA
was also used as a starting point in life cycle assessment (LCA), energy
flow analysis and in the comparison of material flow development scenar-
ios. The MFA analysis tool was STAN2 software developed by the Vien-
na University of Technology and is presented in Appendix 2.
The waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies examined included firing by
grate, fluidized bed or rotary kiln, pyrolysis, gasification, digestion and
fermentation.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a comprehensive, quantitative approach
to assessing the emissions, resources consumed and pressures on
health and the environment of waste materials during their entire life cy-
cle, from the cradle to the grave. It also quantifies the indirect benefits
of recovering materials and energy from waste. The objective of LCA was
to provide an estimate of the potential impacts of the waste chains and to
highlight the life cycle phases or waste flows causing the greatest contri-
butions to their impacts. The environmental impacts considered the most
relevant and hence important to be included in the LCA performed in the
NeReMa-project were climate change (CC) impacts and the use of natu-
ral resources. Hazardous substances occurring in the waste chains were
assessed quantitatively for the C&D and WEEE chains

20
Environmental life cycle costing (LCC) is a method for evaluating the total
economic effects of a process, product or technology. It follows the struc-
ture of environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) but looks at the inter-
nalized costs during the life cycle of the system studied. The theoretical
assumptions of traditional LCC differ from LCA regarding, e.g., exclusion
of non-market incidences (e.g., pollution) and the crucial role of time-
frame (i.e., interest rates) in calculations.
Best Available Techniques (BAT) describes the level of environmental
management and environmental protection in industrial operations.
Screening of waste chains from the BAT viewpoint was performed over
C&D and WEEE chains.
3.1.1 Features of the selected operational chains
In the NeReMa project five waste operational chains have been analysed. In order
to create the analyses, the operational features of the operational chain need to be
examined. Besides the differing materials, also differing services, technologies
and stakeholders have been identified for the waste chains. Figure 1 presents a
generalisation of the waste operational chain and Tables 24 analysis of the fea-
tures of the five selected operational chains.

Figure 1. General description of the operational chains.

21
Table 2. Features of the generation stage of the five selected operational chains.


22
Table 3. Features of the processes stage of the five selected operational chains.

Table 4. Features of the utilisation stage of the five selected operational chains.


23
3.1.2 Properties of selected waste chains
The selected waste chains have been analysed with MFA to study the current
treatment methods and material potential. A short presentation of the characteris-
tics of the waste chains is given below; more detailed descriptions can be found in
Appendices 37.
3.1.2.1 C&D waste
It is estimated that approximately 2 Mt of C&D waste was generated from con-
struction sites in 2007 in Finland. Figure 2 illustrates the material content of the
C&D stream, and Figure 3 the results of the MFA analysis. The main materials
utilised from the C&D stream are metals, which are sold as scrap to be used as
raw materials, as well as mineral waste, which is used mainly in infrastructure
construction and as aggregates in concrete production. C&D is commonly quite
mixed and contaminated, which complicates the material recovery.

Figure 2. The average material content of the C&D chain. Others include e.g.
gypsum, glass, plastic, packaging, mixed waste and hazardous waste.
36 %
35 %
14 %
15 %
Wood
Mineral
Metal
Other

24

Figure 3. Results from the MFA analysis of C&D waste generation and treatment.
Others include e.g. gypsum, glass, plastic, packaging, mixed waste and hazard-
ous waste. After treatment, approximately 38% of the C&D stream is recycled as
material, 35% recovered as energy, 6% utilized at landfills and 21% landfilled.
The main hazardous substances in C&D waste are phenols, asbestos, lead-based
paints (LBP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAH)
(Monier et al., 2011). The use of asbestos, PAHs, LBPs and PCBs is restricted,
and asbestos and PCBs are required to be collected separately but may still enter
the mixed C&D waste stream. An important characteristic of the hazardous sub-
stances in construction and building products is the relatively long life span of the
articles, also their use in a wide range of building products (OECD, 2011). The
quantity of hazardous wastes in C&D waste is around 1%, but they can hinder the
recycling of materials. Hazardous substances may be released into the environ-
ment for example during the demolition of buildings and the crushing and sieving
of C&D waste. Potentially hazardous substances entering the environment in-
creases when mixed C&D waste is treated outside. Studies have shown that haz-
ardous substances, e.g. heavy metals, can also leach from landfilled C&D waste
(Fatta et al., 2003; Hellman & Isoaho, 2006).

25

Figure 4. Estimations of C&D waste from construction, renovation and demolition
activities in Finland [1000 t/a] 19902010 (Perl et al., 2006; Perl & Nippala,
1998; Statistics Finland 2011a, 2011b; Eurostat, 2010).
Figure 4 presents C&D waste generation trends in Finland in 19901997 and
20002004, and indicates that rehabilitation activities have grown while construc-
tion and demolition activities have been rather stable since 1995. It can be as-
sumed on the basis of the age distribution of the Finnish housing stock that reha-
bilitation activities will continue to grow. Rehabilitation activities generate more
wood and metals, but less minerals than the other C&D activities. On the other
hand, large apartment buildings from the 1960s and 1970s are getting older and
increased demolition might generate more minerals (Kojo & Lilja, 2011). Table 5
presents the current composition of C&D waste, as well as estimations for two
future scenarios.
Scenario 1 presents increased renovation while demolition remains sta-
ble. The wood fraction would increase as well as metal content, while
minerals would decrease.
Scenario 2 presents increased demolition while renovation remains sta-
ble. The mineral fraction would increase, while wood and metal would
decrease.
Table 5. The composition of current state and two scenarios.

Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Metals % 13.5 15 10
Minerals & Concrete % 35 20 50
Wood % 36 45 20
Other % 15.5 20 20


26
In Figure 5 a comparison of treatment methods of the current state and two scena-
rios have been presented. The major difference in the two scenarios is that Sce-
nario 1 has a higher energy utilization rate than Scenario 2. Considering that EU
Waste Framework directive (EU, 2008a) requires 70% material utilization by 2020,
neither scenario will achieve this without changes in processing and in sorting. In
Scenario 1 a considerable amount of the waste is wood (45%), which is utilized as
energy. This means, that with current treatment methods, the 70% material utiliza-
tion cannot be achieved rationally in Scenario 1. Even though the wood fraction
would decrease below 30%, the processing to achieve 70% material utilization
would be extremely challenging since the amount of REF produced in the treat-
ment of miscellaneous waste is too high. This means that, in order to achieve the
requirements of the directive, the focus of the C&D waste treatment needs to
change from REF production and energy utilization into material utilization.

Figure 5. Results from the MFA analysis of the current and two alternative future
waste generation scenarios.
0,38
0,271
0,44
0,35
0,431
0,22
0,06
0,05
0,07
0,21
0,25 0,26
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
Current state Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Material utilization Energy utilization
Utilization at landfills Landfilling

27

3.1.2.2 C&I waste
C&I is often collected and treated, and usually reported together with MSW, which
is why the future scenarios for C&I waste generation and treatment are reported
together with the MSW. The average annual C&I generation is approximately 1 Mt.
Figure 6 illustrates the material content of the C&I stream. Currently approximately
35% (350 000 tonnes) of the C&I stream is collected as mixed waste, and the
content of the mixed waste is presented in Figure 7. Of the mixed waste, approxi-
mately 75% is landfilled, 7% is incinerated at mass incineration plants and the
remainder is recycled and recovered as RDF.
C&I waste is very similar to MSW, but the fractions, especially plastics and
metals, can be cleaner than the same fractions in MSW. The quantities of similar
materials can also be larger than in MSW, which makes some of the fractions
good for recycling. Especially metals, paper and cardboard are recycled, while the
majority of the biowaste is landfilled. Figure 8 presents the results of the MFA
analysis. (The data of the glass fraction is not very reliable, while the paper and
cardboard is the most reliable of all fractions with several similar references.)

Characteristics of C&D waste
A typical feature of C & D waste is that it is not continuously generated, and its charac-
teristics varies due to the site-specific conditions. C&D waste is commonly very hetero-
geneous, with a high mineral composition and a low content of combustible and biologi-
cally degradable matter. (Monier et al., 2011) In northern Europe, wood is the main
construction material, whereas brick and concrete dominate elsewhere. As energy
recovery is not seen as recycling in the EU waste framework directive (EU, 2008a),
Finland will have some problems achieving the 70% recycling rate.
C&D wastes are generated at three types of construction sites: renovation (27%), demo-
lition (57%) and construction (16%) (Environment, 2009). Each of these sites produces
waste with different composition and characteristics. The waste streams of construction
sites are mostly clean material surpluses which are not mixed and contaminated. Demo-
lition and renovation waste, on the other hand, is mixed and contaminated and thus also
more difficult to recover. (Monier et al., 2011)
The C&D waste is commonly collected and transported to the treatment facilities directly
from the construction site by the contractor. The quality of the waste is influenced by the
performance/specifications/requirements of selective demolition. The further processing
generally includes only mechanical processing and further refining or utilization as mate-
rial or as fuel in energy production. In all steps some rejects are generated.

28

Figure 6. Composition of the C&I waste stream; others include C&D and hazard-
ous waste.

Figure 7. Composition of the C&I mixed waste; others include C&D and hazard-
ous waste.

Figure 8. Results from the MFA analysis of C&I waste generation and treatment.
34 %
41 %
8 %
3 %
1 %
6 %
7 %
Biowaste
Paper and cardboard
Wood
Metal
Glass
Plastic
Other waste
37 %
24 %
1 %
2 %
2 %
12 %
22 %
Biowaste
Paper and cardboard
Wood
Metal
Glass
Plastic
Other waste

29

3.1.2.3 MSW
The average annual MSW generation per capita in Finland is approximately 500
kg, of which the household waste makes up approximately 60% and the C&I the
remaining 40%. In total approximately 2.5 Mt of MSW was generated in 2008 in
Finland. Figure 9 illustrates the material content of the MSW stream (including C&I
waste). However, currently approximately 60% of the MSW stream is collected as
mixed waste, and the content of the mixed waste is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 9. Composition of the MSW (including C&I) waste stream. Others include
e.g. textiles and clothing, sanitary towels and nappies, mixed packaging, other
combustible waste, other non-combustible waste, mixed waste (not packaging)
and hazardous waste.
Characteristics of C&I
The composition of commercial and industrial waste varies a great deal according to the
origin of the waste. The main producers of C&I waste are offices, schools, restaurants,
hotels, hospitals and retail stores. The main fractions of commercial waste are similar to
those of municipal solid waste, but the shares of different fractions are different.
Different entities produce and recycle different fractions. Recyclables from C&I consist of
plastics, paper, cardboard, metals, and glass, which are suitable for recycling and reuse.
Plastics, paper and cardboard are also suitable for incineration but this is not a preferred
option for handling waste according to EU waste hierarchy (Waste Framework Directive,
2008/98/EC). The waste which is not source-separated as pure material fraction ends up
usually in mixed waste or is source-separated as energy fraction or biowaste.

30

Figure 10. Content of the mixed MSW. Others include e.g. textiles and clothing,
sanitary towels and nappies, mixed packaging, other combustible waste, other
non-combustible waste, mixed waste (not packaging) and hazardous waste.
Figure 11 presents the results of the MFA analysis. MSW treatment in Finland is
still based mainly on landfilling of mixed waste, although paper, glass and metals
are rather efficiently separated and recycled. Biowaste separation is rather com-
mon and steadily increasing. In the past a decrease in landfilling and an increase
in recycling and especially incineration have been seen.

Figure 11. Results from the MFA analysis of MSW (including C&I) waste genera-
tion and treatment. Others include e.g. textiles and clothing, sanitary towels and
nappies, mixed packaging, other combustible waste, other non-combustible waste,
mixed waste (not packaging) and hazardous waste.
The MSW generation (including C&I) of a nation is commonly interconnected with
its wealth; as a country develops, its waste generation increases, to slowly de-
crease when a certain level of prosperity is reached. In some of the European
countries, indications of decoupling are already seen, and even in Finland it
seems that the MSW amounts may be decreasing (Figure 12). The most signifi-
38 %
17 %
14 %
3 %
4 %
12 %
3 %
9 %
Biowaste
Paper waste
Plastic waste
Glass waste
Metal waste
Energy waste
Wood waste
Other fractions

31
cant changes in MSW composition result from the development of packaging
materials and reduction in paper use. The share of plastics in MSW has been
growing, and a further increase is expected. The market share of bio-based plas-
tics will also slowly rise. The use of glass packages is expected to decrease due to
substitution with plastics or other materials.

Figure 12. Development of MSW generation and treatment in Finland and the
interconnection between MSW and GDP in Finland during the years 19972010
(Statistics Finland 2011a; 2011b).

Figure 13. Three prognoses for MSW stream composition changes by the year
2030 (based on Moliis et al., 2009)

32
Figure 13 presents the estimates of composition changes from three different
forecast methods. Three different MFA scenarios were modelled; both quantity
and composition changes has been considered in the modelling. Only changes
compared with the current state have been made on the quantities and composi-
tion, none with efficiencies. In addition, the models were run to estimate the situa-
tion in 2020. In Table 6 the compositions and quantities of MSW (including C&I)
scenarios and current state are presented.
19972007 IPAT
1
(Moliis et al., 2009). The 19972007 IPAT which simp-
ly follows the trend measured shows a slight increase in total waste
(+10%) with paper waste being the only diminishing fraction (-16%). Sort-
ing is estimated to remain as efficient as it is in the current state. Card-
board and paper fraction is assumed to distribute similarly as in the cur-
rent model (appr. 70% paper, appr. 30% cardboard). REF and energy
use streams are higher in Scenario 1 than in the current model, since
they also include the wood fraction.
Expert Team Estimate. The Expert Team Estimate shows a more rapid
growth (+ 16%) with biowaste (+ 24%) and plastics (+32%) growing rap-
idly and glass being the only diminishing fraction (-10%). The model of
Scenario 2 is similar to Scenario 1 except for the sorting distribution
which is different due the differing composition of the waste.
The Finnish National waste plan has set a goal of cutting MSW produc-
tion to the year 2000 level by 2016. The National Continuous Waste Plan
expects all fractions except plastics (+ 7%) to diminish rapidly (-22% total
waste decrease). The model is otherwise the same as in previous sce-
narios except for the sorting distribution. In addition, the entire waste
quantity is significantly smaller than in previous scenarios.
Table 6. Estimated compositions and quantities for 2020 based on three scenarios
and the current situation.

1
IPAT is a simple forecast model based on the following equation: I = P*A*T, where I =
population, A = GDP and T = Technology level factor, here MSW/BKT. In 19972007 IPAT T
is based on development between years 19972007.
Current (2008) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
MSW t/a 2 706 646 2 811 000 2 897 000 2 255 000
Metal s % 4 3 3 3
Gl ass % 5 7 6 6
Paper % 25 21 23 22
Organi c waste % 33 36 37 32
Other % 33 33 31 37

33
In Figure 14, a comparison of the quantities for different utilizations and losses
(exhaust gases from composting) as well as landfilling are presented for the cur-
rent state and three scenarios. The MSW quantity produced will increase in Sce-
nario 1 and 2, while in Scenario 3 the quantity will decrease compared with the
current state. Approximately 1.55 Mt/a of MSW will be landfilled in future (Scenari-
os 1 and 2) if the efficiencies of the processes do not change. Based on the esti-
mation of the National Continuous Plan (Scenario 3), the landfilled MSW amount
would decrease to 1,2 Mt/a from current 1,47 Mt/a. The quantity of MSW directed
for material utilization would be between 430 kt/a and 550 kt/a. Energy utilization
and incineration would together be between 440 kt/a and 540 kt/a.

Figure 14. Utilization, loss and landfilling quantities for different scenarios.
Since the separation and sorting efficiencies are not changed, the utilization rates
are in the same category as in the current situation. Some small differences can
be noticed in the rates, since the MSW composition is slightly different in each
scenario. Utilization rates and shares of losses as well as landfilling are presented
in Figure 15. The composition and quantity changes seem not to have a major
effect on the utilization rates; the results of Scenarios 1 and 2 in particular are
rather similar. The only noticeable difference between these scenarios is the high-
er material utilization rate in Scenario 2, which may be caused by the higher paper
share in the MSW composition. Scenario 3 differs more from the previous scenari-
os both in composition and results. The higher energy utilization may be caused
by a greater share of other fractions, which have higher energy utilization rates
than the other waste fractions. In addition, a smaller share of losses in Scenario 3
is probably caused by a smaller proportion of organic waste in the MSW composi-
tion.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
t
/
a
Material utilization Energy utilization Incineartion
Losses Landfilling

34

Figure 15. Utilization efficiencies, loss and landfill shares.

3.1.2.4 WEEE
The WEEE stream is commonly divided based not on materials but on the catego-
ries defined in the WEEE-directive (EU, 2003). Figure 16 illustrates the breakdown
into the categories of WEEE for the generated WEEE before separation into the
reuse/storage and collection streams.
Characteristics of MSW
A typical feature of MSW is that it is continuously generated, and its characteristics are
similar regardless of the generation site. MSW treatment consists of seven individual
process chains for the separate waste fractions (mixed (including plastics), metals,
glass, paper, cardboard, bio, wood and REF/energy). These fractions can be partly
mixed together or separated, depending on the waste management system. Sorting is
assumed to be done in households or at sorting stations.
The MSW management chain consists of three main steps: generation (including collec-
tion and transport), processing (including disposal), as well as utilisation of the recycled
materials. The MSW produced has to be collected (possible separate collection) and
stored before transport to further processing or final disposal. The further processing
generally includes mechanical and/or biological processing and further refining or utiliza-
tion as material or as fuel in energy production. In all steps some rejects are generated.

35

Figure 16. Breakdown of average arising WEEE categories in 2005 (United Na-
tions University, 2007). The breakdown of the WEEE entering the waste stream
will differ from this due to different collection rates of the different categories.
The collection of WEEE in Finland was approximately 54 kt in 2008 (Eurostat,
2008). Figure 17 illustrates an estimation of the material content of the collected
WEEE. The utilisation rate of the WEEE stream is quite high, as can be seen in
Figure 18. The Finnish legislation recommends reuse before recycling for all
waste, but only a very small amount of the collected WEEE is reused. In reality the
rate of WEEE reuse is higher, due to devices handed on to relatives or friends
when purchasing new ones; another common alternative is to store old appliances
in case of later need instead of discarding as waste. Also a part of the WEEE is
collected with the mixed waste. These reused/stored items do not enter the WEEE
waste stream, and therefore is not part of the statistics for collected WEEE. How-
ever, this alone cannot explain the high rate of WEEE missing from the statistics.
(Ignatius et al., 2009.)


36

Figure 17. Composition of the collected WEEE (United Nations University, 2007).

Figure 18. Assessment of the treatment of WEEE; note the logarithmic scale
(Eurostat, 2008). (The results of the MFA analysis of the WEEE chain will be pub-
lished in a separate report.)
In this research the focus is on the material value of the waste, and two groups of
devices are examined: high and low value WEEE products. Low value WEEE
products are composed mainly of small household appliances, such as vacuum
cleaners, toasters or coffee machines (devices with a lot of plastic parts and only a
small amount of valuable materials). High value WEEE products compose mainly
of metals, plastics, printed circuit boards, cables and wires, power supplies, DVD
and CD stations, hard drives and batteries. Most of the value in high value prod-
ucts lies in the printed circuit boards. The material contents of two examples rep-
resenting high and low value WEEE are presented in Figure 19.
48 %
21 %
7 %
5 %
5 %
4 %
3 %
3 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
Estimate composition of WEEE
Iron and steel
Plastics
Copper
Glass
Aluminium
Other
PWB
Wood and plywood
Concrete and ceramics
Other metals
Rubber

37

Figure 19. Two examples of the composition of low and high value WEEE, to the
left a PC represents high value and to the right a coffee machine represents low
value WEEE (Chancerel & Rotter, 2009).
The hazardous substances of WEEE include heavy metals (e.g. lead, mercury,
cadmium, chromium), PCB, flame retardants among others (Ogilvie, 2004). Stor-
ing WEEE outside exposes equipment to wear and sun radiation and enables, for
example, phthalates and brominated flame retardants (BRFs) to migrate to the
environment producing the risk of soil contamination. In separation and shredder
processes, heavy metals and BRFs can be released but also dioxin formation can
occur due to heat and high pressures developed in the processes. There is also a
risk of the emission of ozone-depleting substances through improper handling of
cooling and freezing appliances. In the incineration process, some environmentally
hazardous organic substances (e.g. BFRs) are converted into less hazardous
compounds, but there is a risk of emission of dioxins as well as a risk of volatile
heavy metals and their oxides. (Crowe et al., 2003)
Waste electrical and electronic equipment consists of a large amount and varie-
ty of recyclable materials. The concentrations of most valuable materials are very
small and becoming even smaller. In the future, more electronics will be found in
other sources than consumer appliances, including end-of-life vehicles, demol-
ished buildings, infra networks, etc. The consumption of critical metals in energy
applications, such as permanent magnets, solar panels, etc. is expected to grow
considerably.
The amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE, is probably
the fastest growing waste stream in the EU. The amount is expected to grow from
8.39.1 million tonnes in 2005 and to roughly 12.3 million tonnes by 2020. Both
the numbers of electrical and electronic devices put on the market as well as the
amounts collected are growing steadily, as is shown in Figure 20. The lifespan of
different products as well as for the different categories varies. I.e. for computer
products the average time in use is 56 years (EuP, 2007). The expectation of a
growing amount of WEEE in the future is based on the growth on electrical and
electronic equipment put on market (at present) in combination with the expected

38
lifespan of each product. This explains the fact that the amounts put on the market
are much larger than the amounts collected. (Eurostat, 2008)

Figure 20. EEE and WEEE put on the market and collected in Finland, develop-
ment 20052008 (Eurostat, 2008).

3.1.2.5 ELV
The End-of-Life vehicle (ELV) waste generation in Finland was approximately 64
kt in 2011 (Data source: Finnish Car Recycling, 2012a). Figure 21 illustrates the
material content of the ELV stream. Currently, mainly the metals (75%) are recov-
ered as raw materials, the remaining 25% which is called Automotive Shredder
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
2005 2006 2007 2008
t
o
n
n
e
s
year
Products put
on market
Waste
collected
Characteristics of WEEE
Waste electrical and electronic equipment originates from households and industry.
WEEE is a very versatile waste fraction and includes a vast variety of different items.
WEEE items are divided into 10 categories, with several items in each category. (Di-
rective 2002/96/EC) These categories are defined by the type of product or the intended
use of the product, and not by the type of material composition of the items or similar
treatment options, which would be more logical from a waste management viewpoint.
Waste electrical and electronic equipment consist of a large number and variety of
recyclable materials, some of which are valuable, as well as a considerable variety of
hazardous materials (Trn et al., 2010). Typical materials are various metals, plastics,
composite materials, and glass. The most valuable components contain metals with a
high market value, while some items mainly consist of plastic which can be used for
energy recovery (United Nations University, 2007). The hazardous substances of WEEE
include heavy metals, PCB and flame retardants among others (Ogilvie, 2004).

39
Residue (ASR or SR) or car fluff, is in Europe classified as hazardous waste
(Vermeulen et al., 2011). ASR is made of plastic (1931%), rubber (20%), textiles
and fibre materials (1042%) and wood (25%), which are contaminated with
metals (8%), oils (5%), and other substances, some of which may be hazardous
(about 10%), e.g. PCB, cadmium and lead. (Nourreddine, 2007) The standard
method of ASR disposal has been landfilling, now limited by the stringent legisla-
tion and the objectives/legislation related to ELV treatment of various countries
and imposes an increased efficiency on the recovery and recycling of ELVs.

Figure 21. Average material content of ELV (data source: Finnish Car Recycling,
2012b).
On a new vehicle, for which component parts, materials or both can be taken into
account, the calculation of the recyclability and recoverability rates are carried out
through four main steps: depollution, dismantling, metals separation and non-
metallic residue treatment (ISO 22628:2002). Depollution concerns about 3% in
weight of ELV materials; it consists of the removal of batteries, fluids, heavy met-
als containing components, or potentially explosive elements (e.g. airbags) (Mor-
selli et al., 2010). During dismantling, parts and materials are removed for recov-
ery. The materials removed at this stage range from 9% for old (natural) ELVs to
47% for new (premature, e.g. damaged) (Morselli et al. 2010). The treatment of
the recovered materials of the dismantling process is illustrated in Figure 22. The
remaining materials are shredded, after which materials are separated, based on
physical and optical properties. The residue (ASR) consists of approximately 25%
of the ELV mass, which is partly incinerated and partly landfilled. The treatment of
the materials in the shredding process is illustrated in Figure 23.


40

Figure 22. Assessment of the materials recovered at the dismantling and depollu-
tion stage (European Commission, 2012d) (The results of the MFA analysis of the
ELV chain will be published in a separate report).

Figure 23. Assessment of the recovered materials from the shredding process
(European Commission, 2012e). (The results of the MFA analysis of the ELV
chain will be published in a separate report.)
Every year, ELVs generate between 8 and 9 million tons of waste in the EU (Eu-
ropean Commission, 2012a). In 2007 about 73 million vehicles were produced
worldwide. Compared to about 38 million vehicles produced in 1980, the world-
wide production for cars is growing steadily (Vermeulen et al., 2011). The projec-
tion in Figure 24 shows that the number of ELVs for the EU25 will probably in-
crease by 45% between 2005 and 2030. Taking into account the mass of export of
used cars, which is about 2 million, it can be expected that by 2030 the total mass
of ELVs generated per year in the EU25 will reach 1417 million tonnes. (Ver-
meulen et al., 2011.)


41

Figure 24. Projected number of End-of-Life vehicles in the period 20052030 for
the EU member states without Romania and Bulgaria (EU25), for the older EU
countries (EU15) and for the new EU countries (EU10) (Vermeulen et al., 2011)
In the future, based on changes already made in vehicle design in order to reduce
the environmental impact of cars and to increase sustainability, both the weight
and composition of ELV will change. The average weight of ELVs will increase,
and the share of an ELV by weight accounted for by plastics will increase while the
share accounted for by ferrous metals (mainly steel) will decline. However, the
absolute weight of metals will increase. (European Commission, 2006a)
ASR recovery: Under evaluation by both car producer and recycling companies
at this time, great innovations are expected in the next few years, i.e. concerning
material separation enhancement, thermo-chemical conversion (gasification and
pyrolysis) and recycling/recovery routes of the residue (Vermeulen et al., 2011).
Possible upgrading by secondary recovery techniques can produce a fuel- or filler
grade ASR (the application in waste-to-energy plants, in cement kilns or in metal-
lurgical processes is possible with limitations). The ASR quantities are likely to
increase in the coming years due to the growing number of cars being scrapped
and the increase in the amount of plastics used in car production. (Morselli et al.,
2010.)

42

3.1.3 Current utilisation and losses of material potential in the selected
waste chains
The current waste generation of the waste chains presented in this report is pre-
sented in Table 5. The material potential of the waste chains is the currently gen-
erated waste and the losses (the non-utilised waste volumes). In order to utilise
the whole potential, improvements need to be made. Of course, a complete 100%
recycling rate is never possible, but it is safe to estimate increasing recycling rates
in the future. With increasing raw material prices, the economic feasibility of recy-
cling can improve, thus, creating an increased demand for recovered materials.
With improving technology solutions the supply of recovered raw materials can
also grow, meeting the increasing demand.
Characteristics of ELVs
It has been estimated that the number of deregistrations in the EU25 is about 12.6
million in every year of which about 3 million are exported (about 2 million are exported
to another member state and about 1 million are exported outside the EU) (European
Commission, 2006a). In 2011 in Finland 64 851 certificates of destruction (CODs) were
issued (54 634 CODs in 2010) (Finnish Car Recycling, 2012a). However, in many
member states including Finland, the number of ELVs represents less than 50% of the
number of deregistered cars (Schneider et al., 2010). Thus there is a clear lack of
detailed information about the further use of more than 50% of the deregistered cars,
and also a clear need for improvements of data quality and availability of national
vehicle markets.
As a result of the strict legislation related to ELV treatment of various countries, the
requirements for the treatment and disposal of ELV is becoming more challenging
(Vermeulen et al., 2011). From old vehicles, component can be reused and materials
recycled through four main steps: Depollution, Dismantling, Metals separation and Non-
metallic residue treatment. Dismantling is the removal of valuable parts and materials
which can be re-used or recycled (e.g. glass, metallic components containing alumini-
um, magnesium, copper, rubber and plastic elements).
Ferrous metals, which are mainly composed of iron and have magnetic properties, are
the main component of ELV. Ferrous metals are removed from ELV by a series of
mechanical and magnetic processes.
Non-ferrous metals, such as aluminium, copper, lead, zinc, and nickel, are in general
removed from ELVs by eddy current or dense media separation.
The remaining materials constitute the non-metallic residue, also called ASR or car fluff
(approx. 25 % of the ELV). Light fraction fluff, size > 30 mm, represents about 50 % of
the total ASR or SR stream (approximately 25% of an ELV). Considering only the
coarse and oversize fraction, typically 40% (i.e. 20 % of total ASR or 5% of an ELV) of
it can potentially be recovered (Forton et al., 2006; Redin et. al., 2010).

43
Table 7. Current waste potential of the selected waste chains.
C&D* MSW** C&I*** WEEE**** ELV*****
Mixed, t/a 1 300
Plastic, t/a * 221 000 59 000 11 500 5 800
Glass, t/a * 187 000 10 000 2 700 1 900
Metals, t/a 270 000 48 000 33 000 33 000 48 600
Wood, t/a 720 000 7 100 78 700 1 600
Paper &
cardboard, t/a 248 000 423 000
Biowaste, t/a 570 000 354 000
Aggregates, t/a 700 000 1 100
Others, t/a 310 000 365 000 71 000 4 400 6 400
Total, t/a 2 000 000 1 647 000 1 028 000 55 000 64 000
*others include e.g. gypsum, glass, plastic, packaging, mixed wasta and hazardous waste
** for MSW domestic (ei.e C&I excluded) composition of the waste, others inlude e.g. textiles, sanitary
towels and nappers, mixed packaging, other combustible waste, other non-combustible waste, mixed
waste and hazardous waste
*** for C&I waste stream others include e.g.hazardous and C&D waste
**** for composition of WEEE collected
***** others include rubber, textiles, paints & fluids

From the economic and usually also sustainability point of view, it is important to
exploit the synergies between various waste streams, e.g. by an integrated treat-
ment and utilization of similar or complementing waste fractions. As can be seen
from Table 8, waste fractions, such as metals, plastics and glass are present in all
the waste streams analysed. For planning of material use, this general classifica-
tion is too simplified, because the categories comprise different types of materials
with different properties.
The next level is to find out what are the individual shares of different material
types in the target streams. As an indicative estimate of the composition of plastic
waste, the European level percentages of the most common plastic types in the
selected chains and in packaging waste are presented in Table 6 (Delgado et al.,
2007). Apart from the situation in 2005, a development scenario for 2015 was
made by the authors. The packaging plastics category overlaps with other catego-
ries, especially MSW, where the estimated share of packaging plastics is 6080%
of all the plastics contained.


44
Table 8. The percentages of most common plastic types (% in each plastic waste
stream) in selected waste streams in the 2005 and 2017 scenarios (Delgado et al.,
2007).

Besides polymer composition there are other barriers to the integrated material
use of plastics, such as contamination of the plastics, e.g. various residues in
packages; various potentially hazardous additives, such as flame retardants, metal
pigments and blowing agents, and an increasing use of composite packages.
3.1.3.1 C&D waste
The material potential of the C&D waste chain is presented in Figure 25. The low
recycling rate for wood is due to its cheaper and easier energy recovery. Wood is
an abundant renewable resource in Finland, which is also used as virgin for ener-
gy recovery. But there are a few applications for material recycling, which is why
from an economic point of view energy recovery can be seen as equal to recy-
cling. Of the metals approximately 75% are sorted for recycling, but metals sepa-
rated from the other waste streams allow approximately 91% of the C&D waste
metals to be recovered. Others include e.g. plastics, glass, insulation and gypsum
originating from mixed waste, and only 50% of these are sorted for REF produc-
tion. After treatment, approximately 38% of the C&D stream is recycled as materi-
al, 35% is recovered as energy, 6% is utilized at landfills and 21% is landfilled;
thus the losses can be seen as either only the landfilled volume or also the volume
utilised at landfills as well. In order to improve the material utilisation of C&D
waste, the identification and sorting technologies should be improved, as also the
on-site sorting rates.

HDPE LDPE PET PP PS PU ABS PVC PA
Packaging 17-22 30-35 12-17 17-20 10 4
MSW 15-20 38-43 7-12 5-10 12-17
C&D 4-9 14-19 3-8 50-55
WEEE 7-12 26-31 13-18 27-30
ELV 3-8 28-33 8-13 12-17 5-10 4-9
Agri cul ture 60-65 2-5 18-23
HDPE LDPE PET PP PS PU ABS PVC PA
Packaging 22-27 30-35 20-25 15-20 9 2
MSW 15-20 38-43 12-17 5-10 12-17
C&D 4-9 18-23 7-12 45-50
WEEE 17-22 20-25 6-11 18-23
ELV 7-12 38-43 8-13 5-10 5-10 6-11
Agri cul ture 60-65 2-5 18-23
2005 scenario, wt-% in plastic waste streams
2017 scenario, wt-% in plastic waste streams

45

Figure 25. Results from the MFA analysis of C&D waste generation and treatment
of utilised and remaining material potential of the C&D waste chain. Others include
e.g. gypsum, glass, plastic, packaging, mixed waste and hazardous waste.
3.1.3.2 C&I waste
The estimated material potential of the C&I waste chain is presented in Figure 26.
Currently approximately 46% of the waste is recycled and 11% utilised in energy
production, the remaining 41% is incinerated in mass burning plants and 3% land-
filled. 87% of the current material potential is being utilised. Currently approximate-
ly 35% of the C&I stream is collected as mixed waste; of the mixed waste approx-
imately 75% is landfilled, 7% is incinerated at mass incineration plants, and the
remainder is recycled and recovered as RDF. Thus, the majority of the loss in
utilised material potential originates from mixed waste collection. (The data on the
glass fraction is not very reliable, while the paper and cardboard is the most relia-
ble of all fractions with several references.)

Figure 26. Results from the MFA analysis of C&I waste generation and treatment
of utilised and remaining material potential of the C&I waste chain.
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
Wood Mineral Metal Other
Energy recovery
Recycling
REF production
Landfilling

46
3.1.3.3 MSW
The material potential of the MSW waste chain is presented in Figure 27. Current-
ly approximately 30% of the waste is recycled, 9% is utilised in energy production
and 7% is utilised for REF production. The remaining 5% is incinerated in mass
burning plants and 49% is landfilled. Thus, less than 50% of the current material
potential is being utilised. If not suitable for recycling, the source-separated waste
is also used for energy recovery or REF production; the efficiency of material
recovery of e.g. plastics and wood is dependent on the cleanliness and homoge-
neity of the fractions, which commonly is quite poor for MSW.
Currently only 40% of the MSW is site-sorted; the majority of the site-sorted
waste is recycled (only approximately 2% is incinerated or landfilled). Thus, the
high landfilling rate is mainly due to the lack of site-sorting. However, current site-
sorting efficiencies are not sufficient to cover the increasing sorting demand, which
is why alternative sorting technologies may prove efficient. Metals, as well as
paper and cardboard, have quite a high value as recovered raw materials, why the
sorting should be intensified in order to increase the recovery rates.

Figure 27. Results from the MFA analysis of MSW waste generation and treat-
ment of utilised and remaining material potential of the MSW waste chain. C&I is
included in the MSW chain due to lack comparable data on the separate streams.
Others include e.g. textiles and clothing, sanitary towels and nappies, mixed pack-
aging, other combustible waste, other non-combustible waste, mixed waste (not
packaging) and hazardous waste.
3.1.3.4 WEEE
WEEE has an 85% recovery rate and an 82% recycling rate of the collected
waste. Even though legislation recommends reuse before recycling, only a very
small amount of the WEEE is collected for reuse purposes. A significant part of the
end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment never enters the intended collection

47
system as illustrated in Figure 28; since the majority of the collected waste is re-
covered, emphasis should be on recovering this missing part of the waste stream.

Figure 28. Reported generation and treatment of utilised and remaining material
potential of the WEEE categories (Eurostat, 2008). (The results of the MFA analy-
sis of the WEEE chain will be published in a separate report.)
3.1.3.5 ELV
ELV Reuse and Recycling rate, 2009 in Finland were 81% (European Commis-
sion, 2012f). The main treatment processes of materials are dismantling and
shredding, where some materials are recovered even at the dismantling stage, as
illustrated in Figure 29, and the remainder are shredded and separated for treat-
ment, as illustrated in Figure 30.

Figure 29. Assessment of the utilisation and remaining material potential of the
recovered materials from dismantling (European Commission, 2012d). (The re-
sults of the MFA analysis of the ELV chain will be published in a separate report.)

48

Figure 30. Assessment the utilisation and remaining material potential of the re-
covered materials from the shredding process (European Commission, 2012e).
(The results of the MFA analysis of the ELV chain will be published in a separate
report.)
3.1.3.6 Increasing the utilisation rate
As can be seen FOR C&D, MSW and C&I, the main obstacle to increased utilisa-
tion of the material potential is the collection of mixed waste instead of site-sorting,
and the inefficient mechanical sorting of the mixed waste. Enabling more efficient
site and mechanical sorting of the waste would generate cleaner fractions for
recovery. Site-sorting can only reach a certain efficiency due to peoples lack of
interest in and knowledge of materials. Also, increased site-sorting generates
increased transport costs, which again reduces the economic incentive to recycle.
Thus, although site-sorting should increase, the mechanical sorting technologies
should be developed and utilised to reach the material potential of the waste gen-
eration.

49

3.1.4 Energy recovery
The total amounts, current waste-to-energy (WTE) and potential for WTE of the
waste chains examined are presented in Table 9. The total potential for incinera-
tion is calculated based on suitable fractions for WTE coming from waste chains.
MSW includes also C&I, but the amounts of C&I waste are also presented sepa-
rately from MSW. The fluff coming from ELV processing seems to be least utilized,
since 98% of it is not utilized in WTE. However, clearly the largest potential is in
MSW, where an annual additional 2 200 kt could be used for WTE and material
recycling. Since the C&I waste is also included in MSW, this means that MSW
accounts for 86% of total potential for WTE and material recycling from these
waste chains.

Sorting and separation
Recycling requires the waste fractions to be thoroughly separated either as on-site
sorting or in mechanical sorting facilities. In most cases the sorted waste fractions re-
quire some kind of processing to recover economically profitable materials. Sorting is
based on different identification methods and combinations of these, such as magnetic
properties, density, size, and optical properties. There are two alternative sorting meth-
ods; on-site sorting and mechanical sorting:
In on-site sorting, waste is sorted before collection and transportation; e.g. sorting at
home, in construction sites, or in offices. On-site sorting reduces the need for sorting
appliances at waste treatment facilities, reducing the waste treatment costs. Further-
more, the waste fractions are never in contact with each other, reducing the risk for
contamination, and improving the quality and recycling rate of all fractions. On-site
sorting, however, increases the number of waste fractions, and consequently the need
for collection containers and infrastructure, thus increasing collection costs. Of the waste
streams studied in this project, C&D, MSW and C&I can be sorted on site.
Mechanical waste separation reduces the number of waste fractions and required infra-
structure, thus reducing the cost and efforts associated to on-site sorting. However,
when mechanically separated, the material is not as clean as it would be when source-
separated. The mixed waste is commonly separated in a series of mechanical process-
es which identify different materials based on their mechanical properties. Of the waste
streams studied in this project, WEEE and ELV consist of bulky heterogeneous materi-
als, which can only be separated mechanically, but they must first undergo size reduc-
tion in order to enable the material separation.

50
Table 9. Total potential and utilized amounts of WTE in Finland.
Total amount Total potential for WTE Current WTE
kt/a kt/a GWh/a kt/a GWh/a
WEEE
a
55 11 85 2 11
C&D
b
2 000 890 3 700 570 2 400
C&I
a
1 1001 700 1 1001 700 4 5007 100 400 1 700
MSW
a
2 700 2 700 7 500 510 1 900
ELV
c
110130 1821 420500 0,41 2
a
2008
b
2010
c
2009
3.1.4.1 Future prospects for WTE
The energy recovery of C&D waste is limited by the directive 2008/98/EC (EU,
2008), which sets a 70% target by 2020 for material recovery from non-hazardous
C&D waste (i.e. not including CCA impregnated wood waste). Wood comprises
35% of C&D waste in Finland, of which the majority is used in energy utilization.
As part of the mixed C&D is also recovered as energy, the total energy recovery
rate is already 35%, exceeding the target of the directive. Thus, the C&D energy
recovery should not be increased if one is aiming to reach the target of the di-
rective.
Municipal solid waste can be incinerated in several combustion systems includ-
ing travelling grate, rotary kilns, and fluidised beds. Increased bed temperature,
combustion control and oxygen addition can be used in grate firing (SYNCOM+
process) (Martin Gmbh, 2011). Gasification and pyrolysis are quite often men-
tioned as the future WTE solution. C-Tech Innovation (2003) stated that the major
advantage of pyrolysis and gasification is high-efficiency electricity generation with
CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine). One disadvantage of gasification as against
grate firing can be the costs, because CCGT plant is quite expensive.
Commercial and industrial waste has better quality than municipal solid waste
in general. However, C&I waste availability for incineration can be lower than that
of MSW since it contains more materials suitable for recovery and recycling (World
Bank, 1999). Due to better quality, commercial waste is more suitable for SRF
production and waste combustion facilities using fluidized bed boilers, than MSW.
The gasification of industrial waste can allow production of purified syngas and
production of useful by-products, for example by using the thermoselect process
(Thermoselect, 2003).
Thermal treatment of WEEE waste plastic includes co-combustion with MSW,
pyrolysis, gasification (Kim et al., 2011), cement kilns and metallurgical processes
(Al-Salem & Baeyens, 2010). The mixed WEEE waste can be mechanically treat-
ed to separate minerals and metals to produce fuel for gasification. In pyrolysis,

51
the metals can be recovered from the char and, with additives, also chlorine, bro-
mine and heavy metal components can be entrapped (Tange & Drohmann, 2004).
In the metallurgical processes plastic waste can have two goals: to bring energy to
process and work as a reducing agent replacing coke (Al-Salem & Baeyens,
2010). In the cement industry, the WEEE waste can substitute fuel and it has been
noted that CaCO3 has a preventative effect on dioxin formation from PVC (Luda et
al. 2005).
The incineration of ASR produced from ELV alone is not suitable because of
possible carry-over of unburned fines and melting characteristics. Co-incineration
with lower heating value wastes enhances the potential and efficiency of incinera-
tion in WTE plants. (Vermeulen et al., 2011.) Mancini et al. (2010) investigated full
scale gasification of ASR and found that the energy efficiency parameter was 0.61
calculated according to directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008). ASR utilization as an
alternate fuel to coal in the iron industry results in excellent emission control, be-
cause blast furnace process conditions assure the destruction of organic com-
pounds (Galvagno et al., 2001). Microwave and plasma-arc thermal destruction
processes can also be used in fluff treatment (Nourreddine, 2007).
3.1.4.2 Applicability of waste to energy technologies
The applicability is divided into three classes: applicable (++), rather unsuitable (+)
and unsuitable (-). Applicable means that the technology is commercially available
and the waste fraction does not pose major restrictions for operation. Rather un-
suitable means that there are some restrictions in technology and/or waste proper-
ties are not suitable (for example LHV).
Grate firing is suitable for a many waste fractions. ESR and ASR can have a
high LHV and combusting only these waste fractions can harm the grate if it is
designed for waste with lower LHV. Fluidized bed combustion, gasification and
pyrolysis require pre-treatment of waste and are therefore not suitable for untreat-
ed mixed and miscellaneous waste. Cement kiln can accept also wide variety of
waste, but it is mostly used for SRF. Biological waste treatment is only suitable for
biodegradable waste and thus organic waste, paper and wood are suitable for
biological waste treatment. The suitability of WTE technologies for the waste frac-
tions arising from examined waste chains is presented in table 10.


52
Table 10. Suitability of WTE technology for waste fractions from waste chains.

3.1.5 Problems and challenges arising during the MFA analysis
Knowledge gaps:
C&D
o Total waste generation of all C&D fractions
o Composition changes
o Information on quantities that are separately collected and/or
treated
o Information on the qualities of produced and residual fractions
o Shares ending up in unknown treatment.
MSW
o Information on the qualities of produced and residual fractions
o Since paper and cardboard are compiled together in the statis-
tics, it is challenging to estimate how much cardboard and paper
are generated and treated
o Detailed information on how much of each fraction (paper, bio,
energy waste etc.) ends up in incineration, energy utilization and
REF-production
o Rather large assumptions as regards process efficiencies for
each material group (metal, paper, wood, glass etc.) needing to
be made.

Grate firing
Fluidized
bed
Gasification Pyrolysis Cement kiln Digestion Fermentation
Wood SRF ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - +
Mi scel l aneous ++ + + + ++ - -
Paper ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + +
Mi xed ++ - + + ++ - -
Organi c + + + + + ++ ++
Mi xed waste ++ + + + + - -
Energy waste ++ ++ ++ ++ + - -
REF / RDF ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - -
Organi c waste + + + + + ++ ++
Paper ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + +
ESR + + ++ ++ ++ - -
Pl asti cs ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - -
ASR + + ++ ++ ++ - -
Pl asti c ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - -
ELV
++ sui tabl e, + poorl y suitabl e, - not sui tabl e
Thermal treatment Biological treatment
C&D
C&I
MSW
WEEE

53
C&I
o Total waste generation of, glass, metal, plastics and biowaste.
Data of glass in this research was the most unreliable. Paper
and cardboard are well known.
o Detailed data for the whole of Finland
o Proportion ending up in source separation and mixed waste
o Proportion of generation by different producers
o Information about end use of different fractions.
WEEE
o No or poor data on arising WEEE amounts
o Collection data available is based on WEEE-categories, not
based on actual amounts of products with similar waste quali-
ties.
o Data on composition of WEEE is lacking.
ELV
o Challenge the industry is facing, is that only a part of vehicles
which are deregistered receive a certificate of destruction
(COD). There is a clear lack of detailed information about the
further use of more than 50% of the deregistered cars, and fur-
thermore a clear need for improvements of data quality and the
availability of the national vehicle markets.
o A challenge clearly identified in all value chain analyses is the
lack of good quality data. In addition to the need for better data,
methodological development is needed.
Development needs:
C&D
o A nationwide reporting system for C&D waste management
o More efficient sorting at source is required in order to increase
the yield and improve the quality of products
o Material recycling of wood waste
o Material recycling of insulating materials, plasterboard, plastics,
packaging and composite materials
o Recycling of concrete waste to concrete
o Reduction of treatment residues
o Utilization rates should be targeted on the whole treatment chain
o Quality requirements should be taken into account in utilization
rates
o Reporting after processing.
MSW
o Separate reporting/statistics system for C&I and MSW
o Separate reporting for paper and cardboard
o Reduction of treatment residues
o Utilization rates should be targeted on the whole treatment chain

54
o Quality requirements should be taken into account in utilization
rates
o Improved material recycling of plastics and combined material
and energy recycling of biowaste
o Reporting after processing.
C&I
o Nationwide reporting / statistical system of C&I sector's waste
generation and separation
Consistent (for example HSY's Petra service)
Transparent
Traceable
o Nationwide reporting system of C&I waste management
o Estimating the accuracy of this methodology by comparing re-
sults from different years
o More detailed cost and value analysis.
WEEE
o Collection rates need to be enhanced
o Sorting at source should be enhanced
o Separation of valuable materials and components.
ELV
o Data on imported cars need to be considered in ELV estimation
o Estimation of new supply and value chains and material flows of
electric and hybrid light vehicles
o Innovations for more efficient material separation, thermo-
chemical conversion (gasification and pyrolysis) and recycling/
recovery routes of the residue
o Utilisation methods of ASR.
3.2 Aspects of value formation
Traditionally the value of waste is determined by its treatment requirements and
the service providers estimation of salvageable materials and their market value.
For mixed and hazardous waste streams, the value is usually negative because
the cost of collection, transport, and treatment are much higher than the possible
benefits from material or energy reclamation. For clean, recyclable materials, the
value can be positive because the material value exceeds the overall costs, and
the service provider buys the waste from the waste producer if there is true com-
petition on the market. From the recycling systems and processes research and
development point of view, the traditional value determination is, however, not
sufficient because it does not take into account the whole value potential of the
waste.
The value potential of a waste stream can be determined independently of pre-
sent handling practices and processing technologies. The value potential depends
only on the characteristics of the waste stream itself. Each item, part, component,

55
material, and substance in the waste stream has a market value which can be
determined using the market price data of second hand products, recycled materi-
als, and raw materials. The value potential of the waste stream is the maximum
sum of these market values.
The determination of the value potential gives a whole new set of indicators for
the evaluation of the efficiency of recycling systems and processes. For instance,
the reclaimed value of materials in the WEEE value chain, which was analysed in
this project, was much lower than the value potential. The difference between the
potential and the value reclaimed was greatest in precious metals mostly con-
tained in printed circuit boards, plastics, and rare earth metals which were not
reclaimed at all. The analysis also showed that meeting the weight-based recy-
cling targets and requirements does not automatically also mean that a high por-
tion of the value potential has been reclaimed. Especially in high value WEEE,
most of the value potential is in a very small part of the total mass.
In addition, analysis of the value potential gives ideas for new types of business
development. A typical example of the effect of value potential on the business
model comes from the ELV recycling industry. If the average scrapping age is low,
which means that the scrapped cars are quite new, the primary business interest
is in reclaiming usable spare parts and high value components, because their
value potential is much higher than the value of materials and substances in these
parts and components. On the other hand, if the average scrapping age is high, as
in Finland at the moment, the value potential of old parts is low and the primary
business interest is in material reclamation. This in turn creates new challenges for
the industry, because it will be very difficult to achieve the new ELV recycling
targets with the present technologies, especially as the material contents of ELVs
is continually changing towards a lower material reclamation potential.
The value potential approach used in the project to describe and analyse the
waste streams has proved to be useful, especially in the cases when the waste
stream consists of complicated products with common features such as cars or
electronic equipment of a certain type. It is also suitable in cases when the above-
mentioned discarded products form a more general grouping, like high- or low-
value WEEE, or in cases when the waste stream can also have other than materi-
al and substance values, such as demolition waste. For mixed waste streams with
relatively low material values, like mixed MSW and C&I waste, the value potential
approach does not provide very much new information.
3.3 Life cycle and BAT aspects of waste chains
3.3.1 Life cycle climate change impacts of the selected waste chains
The environmental impacts considered the most relevant and important to be
included in the LCA for the NeReMa waste chains were climate change (CC)
impacts, natural resources use and toxic impacts caused by hazardous substanc-
es. The CC impacts were assessed for all waste chains excluding the ELV waste

56
chain and natural resources use for the C&D waste chain. Hazardous substances
were assessed qualitatively for the C&D and WEEE waste chains (presented in
the waste chains in Chapter 3.1.2). The aim of the LCA was to provide an estimate
of the potential impacts of the waste chains and to highlight the life cycle phases
(processes or activities) or waste flows causing the highest contributions to the
impacts. The waste chains were divided into five life cycle phases:
waste generation
pre-treatment (crushing/shredding and separation)
recovery (both material and energy recovery) of the separated materials
treatment of waste (landfilling)
avoiding virgin production or energy generation.
Transportation was not included in the assessments. The role of transportation
has in many waste management LCAs been shown to be of minor importance
compared to the overall impacts (e.g. Myllymaa et al. 2008). The role may, how-
ever, increase with recycling demands for more waste fractions requiring separate
collection.
Due to the data gaps and uncertainties involved in the assessment, the results
can only be considered as directional. Uncertainty is introduced by a lack of data
on the composition and amounts of waste fractions included in the waste chains
and also on the purity of the materials produced by the waste chains intended for
recovery. The latter affects the usability of the waste chain "products" in e.g. met-
als manufacturing or earth construction, and the emissions avoided by compensat-
ing virgin production with them may be overestimated. The estimations of potential
for avoiding emissions by energy recovery of waste are based on the assumption
that waste replaces fossil fuels. When moving towards an increasing use of bio-
based energy, this assumption does not hold any more.
3.3.1.1 Results
The CC impact assessment performed for the C&D, MSW, C&I and WEEE waste
chains with the assumptions made (described in the analysis report Dahlbo et al.
2012) showed that the life cycle phase pre-treatment produces 28% of the overall
CC impacts produced by waste chains. The contribution of the treatment phase
(i.e. landfilling) varies from < 1% to 53% and of the recovery phase 3992% of the
overall CC impacts produced by the waste chains.
The majority of the impacts from the treatment phase originate from landfilling
mixed waste, but also from landfilling residues and rejects produced in various
processes along the waste chains. The majority of the impacts produced by the
value chains originate from the metals, REF and mixed waste fractions for the
C&D chain (Table 11), from the paper, mixed waste (energy recovery), glass and
REF fractions for the MSW chain, from the cardboard, plastics and mixed waste
fractions for the C&I chain and from the metals and plastics and rubber fractions
for the WEEE chain. Most of the potential for avoiding impacts through materials

57
recovery are connected to metals, paper-and cardboard fractions whereas poten-
tial for avoiding impacts through energy recovery are connected to the wood, REF,
mixed waste and plastics fractions (Table 11). When combining the produced and
the potentially avoided CC impacts, it may be considered that C&D, C&I and
WEEE chains all have the potential for decreasing impacts more than they pro-
duce. For the MSW chain the produced impacts are almost equal to the potentially
avoided impacts.
Table 11. Contributions of different waste fractions to the CC impacts produced or
potentially avoided by the value chains C&D, MSW, C&I and WEEE.

The performances of the waste chains can be enhanced by decreasing the land-
filling of biodegradable fractions, rejects and residues and increasing the recycling
of especially metals, paper and cardboard fractions. Plastics are at present mainly
recovered as energy, but due to high emissions from plastics incineration, the
benefits of energy recovery remain small. Recycling of plastics would decrease
the impacts produced from recovery and increase the impacts potentially avoided.
Due to the heterogeneity of plastics, more processing would be needed in the pre-
treatment phase, but observing the minor share of pre-treatment of the overall
impacts of waste chains, from an environmental point of view this would still be
beneficial.
3.3.2 The use of life cycle costing in evaluating waste chains
During the NeReMa life cycle costing (LCC) was demonstrated alongside envi-
ronmental LCA. LCC complements the LCA in sustainability assessment by eval-
uating also the economic sustainability. However LCC could not be fully imple-
mented, due to the limited access to company accounting data. Therefore, only
the LCC approach was demonstrated by using the data available from the LCA.
Metals Glass Paper Cardboard
Organic/
biowaste Wood REF Mixed waste
Concrete,
mineral Plastics Sum
Produced; C&D 26 % 5 % 34 % 34 % 2 % 100 %
Produced; MSW 2 % 4 % 20 % 1 % 1 % 0,2 % 9 % 63 % 100 %
Produced; C&I 4 % 1 % 28 % 4 % 1 % 49 % 14 % 100 %
Produced; WEEE 54 % 0,2 % 46 % 100 %
Potential for
avoiding; C&D 22 % 46 % 28 % 3 % 1 % 100 %
Potential for
avoiding; MSW 7 % 5 % 25 % 10 % 6 % 8 % 13 % 24 % 100 %
Potential for
avoiding; C&I 9 % 1 % 49 % 13 % 12 % 14 % 4 % 100 %
Potential for
avoiding; WEEE 86 % 1 % 12 % 100 %
Contribution of waste fractions to the overall impacts produced or potentially avoided by the value chain

58
The product flows collected for the LCA of construction and demolition (C&D)
waste were converted into costs by multiplying them with average cost data for
those flows. The average cost data was obtained from scrap metal purchasers
web pages, from machinery costing tools, transport statistics and from infrastruc-
ture suppliers. The costs must, therefore, be considered to be approximate only.
The overall costs are presented in Figure 31. Based on the results, the overall
recycling of C&D waste is profitable, especially because of the revenues from
scrap metal and energy produced from wood and miscellaneous waste. The recy-
cling of mineral and mixed wastes was found to be non-profitable without fees.
However, it should be noted that the costs included in the analysis might represent
only 70% of the overall costs (based on limited information from one company).

Figure 31. Costs estimated from the material and energy flows documented in the
LCA.
Using macroeconomic modelling (ENVIMAT), it was shown that the revenues are
formed from the avoided production of natural gas and forest biomass fuel, im-
ported ores and metal scrap as well as the domestic metal industry. The economic
viability of recycling of C&D waste is, therefore, highly dependent on the price
formation of global metal ores. With increasing resource scarcity, the recycling
process is likely to become more profitable.
The LCC exercise demonstrated that it is not possible to perform a proper LCC
without full collaboration from the companies involved. The cost data is often re-
garded as confidential, and therefore is not available for public research. However,
the tool could be an appropriate management tool for company internal decision-
making. By employing environmental LCC the managers can map the "economic
landscape" of their supply chain and prepare for possible macroeconomic changes.

59
3.3.3 BAT aspects in evaluating waste chains
The waste chains originate either from different activities, such as C&D, MSW and
C&I or on the bases of the type of waste (WEEE and ELV). Widening the perspec-
tive of assessments to include waste chains and parallel processes for different
waste fractions provides the possibility of rethinking the outcome of the waste
chains in a new way and recognizing the hot spots in the wider context. An envi-
ronmentally efficient waste management chain has a twofold target: treatment of
the waste (= raw material) and the end product to be used elsewhere. Therefore,
the BAT criteria include also material recovery rate and quality requirements for
the recovered material in addition to selected environmental emissions. In the
waste management business also the market dynamics unavoidably affects the
criteria and the outcome of the assessment. The LCA tool can be applied for iden-
tifying the hot spots, i.e., activities or processes contributing most to the environ-
mental performance of the whole chain.
Screening of waste-chains from a BAT viewpoint was performed over C&D and
WEEE chains but the definition of BAT criteria was discussed only at a theoretical
level due to the lack of reliable environmental performance data. Collected waste-
chain information is presented in the analysis report of this study.
Considering the specific features of material recovery activities, the BAT as-
sessment procedure for waste management chains can be derived from the five
step general installation level BAT assessment process (EC, 2010). This iterative
process consists of identification of the waste-chain type (origin of the waste,
waste type) and the overall target for the recovery process (waste treatment, ma-
terial recovery), identification of the requirements set by the end use of the prod-
uct(s) taking into account technical, environmental, quality and market based
issues, identification of the activities of processes most contributing the environ-
mental performance of the chain and selection of the criteria to describe BAT for
the waste-chain at general level.
3.4 Monitoring
3.4.1 The current situation in Finland
Currently, the separation of waste materials is based on source separation carried
out manually on-site and mainly mechanical separation methods based on differ-
ent physical properties of the waste, such as magnetic properties, density, size,
and optical properties. In many cases, manual steps are still needed either for
coarse pre-separation or for removal of impurities that are difficult to separate with
current automatic methods.
The main challenges are:
the materials produced by source separation practically always contain
impurities and further purification steps are needed

60
poor quality of the produced materials due to the insufficient separation of
impurities in the current treatment chains
large amounts of mixed residues produced in recycling processes
material losses due to the insufficient separation.
Development and/or introduction of new detection methods suitable for solid mate-
rials could be an essential part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Efficient
integration of automatic detection also calls for a redesign of the process chains.
At present, only a few monitoring and detection techniques are in use in the
Finnish waste management and recycling sector. Typically, the monitoring is
based on visual observations of arriving waste loads and in some cases on
handheld metal detection devices. The quality control of the recovered product
(sorted waste fraction) is commonly implemented by sampling and laboratory
tests. There are some exceptions where the integration of automatic detection
methods to the process has been started. Although there are various commercial
solutions on the market, in many cases it is still difficult to find an efficient or even
a working solution to specific needs. One of the challenges is that most of the
current optical detection methods are hampered by contaminations or visual ob-
structions.
3.4.2 Summary of the identification methods
Many of the identification methods are used in combination with another method to
improve the quality of the end product, or sequentially in order to remove several
different materials from the waste stream.
Colour cameras are typically combined with some other identification
method, such as EMS. It identifies e.g. different types of metals, plastics,
wood, and glass utilizing the different colours of the different types. (The
high spatial resolution in conjunction with precise colour measurement
enables sorting complex material streams of used electrical devices and
the recovery of nonferrous metals with a high purity.)
DE-XRT (Dual energy X-ray transmission) measures the average atomic
number of the fraction. The DE-XRT identifies organic and inorganic frac-
tions, metals, chlorine, and bromine.
EMS (Electromagnetic sensor) measures the electrical properties of met-
als with an alternating magnetic field. The EMS identifies different non-
ferrous metals and sorts them based on electrical conductivity: high, me-
dium and low conductivity. The benefit of the EMS is that coatings or oth-
er impurities on metal, as well as contamination such as dust or dirt, does
not impede identification.
Hyperspectral cameras collect and process information from across the
electromagnetic spectrum, measuring several wavebands simultaneously
and recording a full spectrum for each pixel of the image. The composi-

61
tion and properties of the waste stream is rapidly mapped, and the sys-
tem is able to identify e.g. black objects (plastic types, rubber).
IR (Infrared spectroscopy) is based on the ability of the molecules to ab-
sorb infrared radiation, which varies depending on the material. The
method is suitable for e.g. separate different plastic types from each oth-
er; it is sensitive for moisture. NIR (Near infrared spectroscopy) has many
online applications but is not suitable for dark coloured objects (no identi-
fication). MIR (Mid infrared spectroscopy), again, identifies dark coloured
fractions but has no good online applications.
LIBS (Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy) is based on a high-power
laser producing a plasma flash which vaporizes the surface of the sam-
ple. Different materials emit different wavelengths of energy enabling
identification of e.g. heavy metals, halogens (bromine and chlorine), and
different plastic types.
XRF (X-ray fluorescence) is based on X-rays that are absorbed by the
sample, which generate fluorescence which varies depending on the ma-
terial and the additives. XRF can be used to detect flame retardants,
heavy metals and PVC (chlorine) for the identification of treated wood,
plastic, and additives.
XRT (X-ray transmission) identifies heavy and light atoms. The XRT can
be used for e.g. sorting out PVC, materials with flame retardants, glass
and metals from energy waste.
3.4.3 Development needs
The separation of valuable materials is becoming more important both due to
increasing recovery targets and to the growing recycling business and the in-
creased value of recovered materials. Increased recovery is enabled through
improved identification and separation technologies which are needed in order to
reduce the contamination of the sorted waste while also reducing the losses.
The mechanical separation of household waste is becoming more im-
portant especially due to the ban on landfilling organic waste which is to
come into force in Finland. The majority of the mixed waste will be incin-
erated, and valuable materials, incombustible waste and contaminants
will have to be removed in advance.
The identification of harmful fractions from the energy waste, e.g. treated
wood, metals and PVC, as these fractions cause problems in the incin-
eration process and reduce the utilization possibilities for the ash.
Separation of the metals from REF and mixed waste.

62
Real-time quality monitoring systems (with online communication sys-
tems) for different waste streams.
Identification of different plastic types including black and dark plastics,
as well as contaminants, such as chlorine, flame retardants and heavy
metals.
Improved identification to ease the separation of materials in the recy-
cling of WEEE and ELV.

REF production quality control
The quality of the energy waste and mixed waste is monitored by visual estimation
when the waste is delivered to the treatment plant. After treatment, the properties of the
final REF product are determined in a laboratory by sampling and analysing. REF has its
own standard for quality determination (SFS 5875) with three different quality classes:
REF I, REF II, and REF III, of which REF I is of the best quality. The classification is
based on seven different impurities. The sampling and analysis methods and limit values
are presented in the standard. (SFS 5875:2000)
The fuel properties are dependent on combustion properties such as moisture and
calorific value, as well as harmful contaminations. The problematic fractions are e.g.
treated wood, packages containing aluminium, PVC plastic and fractions containing
flame retardants. (Laine-Ylijoki et al., 2003; Ajanko et al., 2005) The moisture content of
the REF is measured and communicated in real time online; the measurement can be
done e.g. with near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) or microwave permittivity measurement
(Jrvinen et al. 2007). The concentrations of the harmful fractions (chlorine, aluminium
and heavy metals) are measurable with the XRF. The calorific value measurement is
commonly based on sampling and laboratory analyses, which cannot be carried out in
realtime.
4. Towards resource-efficient recycling

63
4.1 Targets
The EU waste directives set quantified recycling targets for approximately 47% of
the around 3 billion tonnes of waste generated annually in the EU Member States
plus Norway, and at the moment about 50% of the targeted wastes are recycled.
(EEA SOER, 2010) The EU Commission will review all recycling and recovery
targets during 2012. Waste chain-specific recycling targets are highlighted below.
Recycling targets are expected to affect product design and innovations in the
field. In practice, the influence of recycling targets has been indirect and not as
significant as was expected. It is possible that in future there will be even more
specific targets, for example for different product groups.
C&D: The EU waste directive (EU, 2008) sets a target for recycling of
non-hazardous construction and demolition waste to a minimum of 70%
by weight by 2020. This will be adapted to the Finnish waste decree. The
target will be an inconclusive target concerning all parties operating with
house building waste management. The large proportion of wood in the
Finnish C&D waste makes the 70% recycling target difficult to achieve.
MSW: The EU waste directive (EU, 2008) sets a target for waste materi-
als such as at least paper, metal, plastic and glass from households and
from other origins. By 2020 a minimum of overall 50% by weight should
be recycled. This target will be adapted to the Finnish waste decree as
an inconclusive target concerning all parties operating with municipal
waste management. In practice, municipalities, producers under producer
responsibility and other entrepreneurs together are in charge of meeting
the target.
WEEE: The so-called WEEE directive (EU, 2003) requires member
states to collect waste electronic devices separately. The European
Commission has proposed a recast (17367/08) (EU 2008c.), which would
adapt the current collection target (4 kg WEEE per inhabitant) to the size
and economic situation of individual EU countries. According to the
agreement reached with the Environmental Council on 14.3.2011, mem-


64
ber states should annually collect 45% of the average weight of EEE
placed on their national markets. This would take effect four years after
the entry into force of the revised law. Four years later (2016), member
states are to achieve a 65% collection rate. Some EU states in which con-
sumers use fewer electronic devices may achieve the targets with some
flexibility. A final decision is expected to be taken at the beginning of 2012.
One of the main elements of the deal is a change in the way the collection
target is calculated.
ELV: A Government Decree on ELVs (581/2004) sets a target by 2015,
for all ELVs oaf minimum of 95% reuse and recovery per year, and a
minimum of 85% reuse and recycling per year. In 2009, the reuse and
recycling rate was 81% in Finland and the reuse and recovery rate 82%
of the number of ELVs collected. It is estimated that more than half of the
ELVs do not end up in producers collection statistics.
4.2 Drivers for change
4.2.1 Megatrends
The Finnish Ministry of Environment (2010) has analysed the current and estab-
lished trends concerning material flows . Material flows in developing countries
such as China, India and Brazil are expected to grow and industrialized countries
are asked to decrease their material flows. According to the ministry, negative
effects of growing material flows are increasing and the need for a global policy is
recognized. The use of natural resources and resource efficiency are both global
and European drivers for a more material-efficient waste sector. Waste is seen as
a resource, and there is a growing global demand for both primary and waste-
derived materials.
4.2.1.1 National strategies
National strategies affecting recycling and waste management in the future include
the National Waste Plan until 2016, the Natural Resource Strategy for Finland, the
Government Report to Parliament on Natural Resources, the working group on
bio-economy supporting the national resource strategy set by the Ministry of Em-
ployment and the Economy, Minerals strategy and Climate Strategies.
As a conclusion to the strategies mentioned above, it can be stated that there is
great concern regarding our extensive use of natural resources in Finland. As a
response to that concern, there are several initiatives on material efficiency, de-
veloping more closed material cycles and using waste as a source of material. The
strategies are more of a voluntary nature than strictly binding. However, they en-
lighten the future prospects of the use of natural resources and materials.

65
4.2.1.2 EU trends and strategies
European environmental and waste legislation has become stricter over the past
decade, demanding more efficient waste treatment and increased recovery rates.
This facilitates the market for waste management and recycling. As a part of the
Europe 2020 strategy, the EU launched a flagship initiative for sustainable growth
and a roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe in 2011. The flagship initiative un-
derlines the fundamental meaning of natural resources to the functioning of the
economy and quality of life. One of the roadmap measures is turning waste into a
resource. Waste management should be improved to make better use of re-
sources, and higher priority needs to be given to reuse and recycling. This opens
up new markets and jobs, as well as encouraging less dependence on imports of
raw materials and lower impacts on the environment.
Apart from the environmental aspects, the access to natural resources is also a
major issue internationally. Besides metals, also phosphorus depletion is a grow-
ing concern. Recently, leakage of valuable resources through exports of end-of life
or second-hand products has been noted as an important enviro-economic prob-
lem, especially for cars and electrical and electronic appliances, and this problem
is now also increasingly recognized as a threat to the supply of Europe with critical
metals. The question of waste exports goes hand in hand with the question of
recycling markets. One reason for growing exports is the existence of major mar-
kets for recyclables overseas. For Europe, this means missed opportunities and
possible risks in terms of raw material supply. There is a need to promote recy-
cling markets and address the problems related to waste exports. Future policies
need to improve not only the quantity of recycled waste but also its quality in order
to further reduce the environmental impacts of waste. Development of quality
standards for recycled materials where these are not yet available, eco-design of
products that improves recyclability, and detoxification of products can all play
roles in moving closer to this aim. (EEA SOER, 2010; EEA, 2010)
4.2.1.3 Global trends
Global trends of increased wealth, industrialization, urbanization and population
growth result in increasing consumption, with consequences such as increased
waste generation and an increased demand for raw materials. These trends as
well as differences in the waste generation between urban and rural people are
stronger in developing countries than in developed countries. In densely inhabited
areas. poorly managed waste can create serious environmental and health prob-
lems. (Hietanen et al., 2006)
The increased utilization of natural resources together with the uneven distribu-
tion of resources, political instability in some major producer countries, and other
political factors will reduce the availability of virgin raw materials; the availability of
high-tech materials, bio based materials and phosphorous are at risk. The collec-
tive ecological footprint of the global population already exceeds the Earths ca-
pacity and is rising. The risks related to reduced material availability and growing

66
prices have led to growing political and private speculation in raw materials, result-
ing in high price volatility, which in turn complicates the recycling business. Since
2005, raw material prices have been quite volatile, as illustrated in Figure 32.

Figure 32. The volatility of raw material prices (Shuh et al., 2011)
The increasing price of natural resources has led to improved energy and material
efficiency in, for example, production processes. On the other hand, the growing
complexity and miniaturisation of products as well as the more efficient processing
of raw materials has led to decreasing recyclability of the generated waste.
Moliis et al. (2009) estimates the global annual market growth of the waste
management sector to be approximately 6%. In developing countries the market
growth is mainly in arranging basic waste management, while developed countries
are increasing their recycling rates and developing new and improved technolo-
gies for waste management (Moliis et al., 2009).
The recycling business (as other business activities) needs flexibility in order to
adapt to the rapid changes of the operational environment and to find proper ways
to manage these. One of the major trends in the waste sector in developed coun-
tries is the integration of waste services into environmental service concepts, as
well as integration with the energy and material sectors. In the future, various
integrated treatment concepts will increasingly gain ground, including, for exam-
ple, combined treatment of various biogenic wastes. The borders of sectors will
fade away, giving space for new industrial symbiosis type networks. The waste
sector is also developing towards greater technology intensity, increasing the
demand for ICT technologies supporting the services and processes. (Hietanen et
al., 2006; Frost & Sullivan, 2006)
Especially in developed countries, peoples attitudes, awareness and environ-
mental concern is increasing. The power of public opinion can be seen in stricter
legislation and improved waste management services. Although people still prefer

67
not to change their consumption patterns, but to rather increase on-site sorting
and recycling, Hietanen et al. (2006) foresee, a change in peoples attitudes, re-
sulting in increasing consumption of services and tailored products. The main
problem for the waste management sector will be to find economical business
solutions for the decreasing waste volumes.
4.2.1.4 New technologies
Technological developments, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology or infor-
mation technology, may have a notable significance for the waste sector. Nano-
technology is an interesting factor affecting the waste management sector. On the
one hand, nanotechnology offers the possibility of enhancing material efficiency by
reducing the use of raw materials, and it may also offer new possibilities for waste
treatment technology. On the other hand, it is uncertain how nanoparticles affect
the recycling or energy recovery of products containing nanomaterials. As all the
other products eventually come to the end of their useful life, so also do products
containing nanomaterials. It is important to consider how various nanomaterials
will be disposed of and treated at the end of their use. What is more, other techno-
logical developments, such as biotechnology or information technology, may have
notable significance for the waste sector. One of the challenges of an increased
use of bio-based products is the increased consumption of nutrients and potential
for soil degradation, leading to the need for better management of nutrient cycles
and organic matter.
4.2.2 Specific drivers and trends for C&D and WEEE waste chains
In an EEA study of classification of recycling policy measures in relation to the
actual recycling achieved, Finland is ranked as level 2. Ahead of Finland are high
performers such as Germany, Belgium and Denmark. Finland is ranked as level 3
for packaging waste and WEEE and level 2 for municipal solid waste and biode-
gradable municipal waste. For construction and demolition waste Finland is
ranked as level 4. The future trend concerning these specific waste streams in
Finland is expected to be a stricter waste policy. (Tojo & Fischer, 2011.)
4.2.3 WEEE
Electrical and electronic equipment waste is one of the fastest growing waste
streams in the EU. The revision of the WEEE directive (EU, 2003) is only just
being carried out. The WEEE directive currently only applies to a specific list of
products. There is an agreement to broaden the scope of the law after six years.
The new WEEE directive also requires large electronic and electrical goods shops
to set up collection points for used small equipment. This is expected to make
recycling easier for citizens.

68
Eco-design of products, end of waste criteria, resource efficiency and the leak-
age of critical metals outside Europe are important factors that will affect WEEE
regulation in the near future. Also, harmful substances in products and associated
regulations must be affected. They may be an obstacle that hampers recycling of
WEEE. The short life cycle of products is a problem and it affects the growth of
WEEE amounts. It is difficult to enhance repair activities due to a lack of spare
parts for old products. The legislation on international shipments of wastes is likely
to become stricter concerning WEEE shipments to avoid environmental risks and
harmful waste management activities, especially in developing countries. When
the holder of the material claims that he intends to ship used EEE and not WEEE,
he should prove his claim that the equipment is not waste. (Interview data.)
4.2.3.1 C&D
There is a specific interest on developing the regulation on C&D waste in Finland.
The ministry of environment has published a report on material efficiency in con-
struction and demolition sector (Kojo & Lilja, 2011) and is about to establish a
working group to take the proposed actions further. The main policy driver, the
70% recycling target for construction and demolition waste is challenging to
achieve in Finland due to the proportion of wood waste. The ban on organic waste
going to landfills is especially expected to affect the management of waste wood.
The Land Use and Building Act and the Building Code are essential drivers in the
construction and demolition sector. Also, product design is an important factor.
Finland is considered to be a small market area, and there are problems with the
availability of recycled products.
The Ministry of Environment is starting a project to improve the database and
statistics for C&D waste generation in order to reduce the uncertainties in the
information concerning C&D waste generation in Finland.
The large variation in the proficiency of the developers is challenging for the
improvement of material efficiency and recycling in the construction sector. Im-
provement of professional capabilities is one of the questions for a working group
to enhance material efficiency of C&D waste to be appointed by the Ministry of
Environment. (Interview data)
According to a report published by European Commission (European Commis-
sion, 2011), the main economic barrier to recycling C&D waste is the high availa-
bility and low cost of virgin raw materials. To overcome this, landfilling of C&D
waste is likely to be made unattractive. An alternative is to increase the price of
primary raw materials with taxes to make recycling more competitive. The report
also suggests that setting End-of-Waste criteria for certain types of C&D waste
could contribute to increasing the market for secondary raw materials obtained
from C&D waste.

69
4.3 Challenges and development opportunities
4.3.1 Waste composition and data quality
Waste quality is affected by several factors such as product composition and con-
taminations, consumption patterns, etc. These factors and their trends need to be
identified and impacts on the waste flows in the long run assessed in order to be
able to bring up the development needs for the waste management and recovery
process technologies.
A challenge clearly identified in all waste chain analyses is the lack of good
quality data. In worst cases applicable data does not exist at all. Most of the avail-
able data is very general and imprecise in nature, and when detailed data is avail-
able its representativeness is usually poor. The main reasons for poor data quality
are, for instance, the heterogeneity of waste streams, which makes sampling very
challenging, and the low value of many streams makes monitoring quite unattrac-
tive. As materials from several waste streams are jointly processed, it is impossi-
ble to keep track of the different streams through the treatment processes.
There is a need for better data quantity and quality analyses of the waste
streams, as well as for tools to keep track of the different waste streams during
processing. This would enable better efficiency analyses of the different streams,
which would enable identification of the most important raw material sources.
Research is needed to produce reliable data on the quantity, composition and
quality of waste material flows both prior to and after sorting and treatment pro-
cesses.
Improved quantity and quality of the waste streams would facilitate the planning
and implementation of research and development projects, as well as corporate
and public decision-making. Although there are methods for waste stream moni-
toring, the costs are too high in comparison to the benefits. Low-cost real-time
monitoring technologies could provide good quality data, but improved monitoring
is not compulsory, and this development is mainly in the interest of researchers
and decision-makers.
4.3.2 Waste management processes
A key challenge for the waste management sector is to increase recycling as a
way to reduce the overall use of natural resources. This calls for intensified sorting
both with more efficient technologies and with guidance on the behaviour of waste
producers (people), but also consideration of the recyclability of products already
in the design phase. Sustainable product design is the first step towards increased
recycling. Sustainable design aims at mapping the whole material chain as a
closed-loop cycle already at design stage, enabling easy recovery of the materials
at the end of the life-span.

70
Reuse would in many cases be more energy and material efficient solution than
recycling. The potential for reuse of construction elements in particular should be
better exploited.
With increased recovery the benefits from recycling would increase and proba-
bly several times over compensate for the increased emissions from pre-
treatment. The behaviour of waste producers can best be assessed by methods
used in the human sciences, which in the future should more intensively be con-
nected to research focusing on waste management.
Typical for waste and recycling chains is the large number of stakeholders and
decision makers involved, and the many different types of criteria used in decision
making. In addition to economic criteria, environmental, social, and policy criteria
also play an important role in decisions which guide the material flows through the
recycling and waste management systems.
4.3.2.1 Emerging technologies
Mechanical processes operate on the basis of physical properties, which is why
physics also creates boundaries to the operation. Therefore, new equipment and
methods are challenging to create, and the focus of new technologies is shifted
towards monitoring/identification, improved processes, combining and controlling
flows and rethinking treatment chains. Improved chain management, including
real-time monitoring of the different flows as well as sophisticated treatment pro-
cesses and process chains focused on certain products, enables gaining in-
creased value from the recovered materials. Contaminations should be removed
and if possible different fractions pre-separated at an early stage of the sorting and
processing in order to improve the quality of the end product and to enable effi-
cient recovery of materials which concentrations are low in the feed e.g. critical
metals.
In order to enable the development of economically viable and sustainable re-
cycling processes, modelling tools and methodologies are needed which integrate
a systematic analysis of the value of waste streams and an analysis of the eco-
nomic and environmental sustainability of recycling processes and concepts.
Analysis of different business scenarios and use of system dynamic modelling
concepts enables an understanding of the viability of the concepts in changing the
business environment.
The availability of data produced can be improved by the creation of multipur-
pose databases that can be used by different parties and by different assessment
programs on the same platform. The potential applications may include identifica-
tion and assessment of the suitability of waste streams for the raw materials of
other industries, sustainability assessments, modelling of recycling and reuse
processes, waste foresight modelling, scenario analyses, etc.
Improved separation technologies enable increased recovery of valuable mate-
rials. For example, the separation of valuable materials, incombustible waste and
contaminants from REF and mixed waste facilitates incineration and recovery.

71
Contaminants, such as treated wood, metals and PVC cause problems in the
incineration process and lessen the utilization possibilities of the ash, which is why
they should be separated more efficiently.
Improved identification methods enable more efficient separation results and
higher quality and value recovered materials. Especially important is, for example,
the identification of different plastic types, including black and dark plastics, as well
as contaminations such as chlorine, flame retardants and heavy metals. There is
also a need for improved identification to ease the separation of valuable materials
in the recycling of WEEE and ELV.
4.3.3 Key materials for increasing resource efficiency
When it comes to resource efficiency and the efficient use of natural resources,
those critical resources and waste streams with the potential to substitute virgin
natural resources should be studied. Waste wood and plastic are regarded as
important resources, which currently have quite low recovery rates, but with high
potentials for the future. Also, the WEEE stream, including metals and critical
materials, should be better utilised. Besides large quantities of copper, strategic
materials, including critical metals can be recovered from this waste stream, help-
ing to cover future demand.
Legislation related to the organic landfill ban, material recycling targets and re-
ductions of greenhouse gas emissions require improved separation and increased
recycling of organic materials. As organic materials cannot be landfilled any long-
er, they need to be identified and separated for treatment. This will require materi-
al and/or energy recovery solutions for biowaste. Also, the EU waste directives
target for recycling of 70% of C&D waste requires recycling of the waste wood and
finding a new utilisation for the recovered wood material. Furthermore, as plastic
materials cannot be landfilled any longer, the separation and recovery of plastics
in MSW, C&D, and WEEE will become necessary.
The depletion of natural resources has generated interest in reutilising materi-
als, which have been discarded at landfills. Waste in landfill deposits can be seen
as a resource, which could compensate for virgin resource use. In order to evalu-
ate the utilisation potential of this waste, more information is needed regarding the
properties and material capacity of this landfilled waste. Methodologies need to be
developed for identifying recyclable materials in landfill deposits.
4.3.4 Markets for recovered materials and products
How different policy tools affect peoples willingness to recycle and buy recycled
products is an interesting question. Recycling decreases the use of natural re-
sources only if products made from recycled materials compensate for products
made from virgin materials. Recycled materials are not always compatible with
virgin materials, and consumers do not always acknowledge recycled products as
being of as good a quality as virgin products. Quality control systems should be

72
developed to verify the quality of recycled products. This is also a business oppor-
tunity, since the need for auditing experts is clear.
The obstacles and drivers for recycling need to be analysed at a national level.
One recognized obstacle is the lack of a market for recovered materials; currently
the supply and demand of waste materials do not meet; the producer and potential
user do not know each other.
In current Finnish conditions, only a few materials, such as metals, paper, and
cardboard, are truly economically feasible to recycle without any government
incentives. Increasing the recovery rate of these materials, which have an existing
market demand, should be emphasised. The market demand for other materials
may, however, increase because of the changes in business environment. Atti-
tudes towards on-site sorting and recycling are also important for the development
of the recycling market.
Metals are a commercially important waste stream, mainly due to the diminish-
ing global metal resources, but also due to the energy-intensive process of mining
and processing metals and the significantly lower energy demand of the recycling
process. The additional benefit is that metals will not degrade during the recycling
process. WEEE is important due to the content of precious metals; but the separa-
tion process is mechanical and quite labour-intensive and therefore expensive in
developed countries.
Strategic materials, including critical metals, which have a limited global availa-
bility, should be recovered from the waste stream in order to cover future demand
E.g. in renewable energy technologies, such as wind energy generators and PV
cells, the global resources of some critical materials are not sufficient to cover
future demand. To understand the future business potential of recycling of critical
materials, the market in virgin materials should also be analysed and substitution
opportunities of the critical materials identified and analysed as far as possible.
4.3.5 Markets for technologies and services
The strict European waste legislation demands major improvements in the waste
treatment methods, thus, creating markets for technology providers. Restrictions
and increased landfilling fees resulting in reduced landfilling rates create a de-
mand for alternative waste treatment methods. The recycling and waste manage-
ment market in emerging countries is rapidly growing. Therefore the development
of advanced recycling technologies and concepts would be a competitive ad-
vantage for Finnish industry on the international market. The value of exported
technologies and services could be considerably higher than the value of materials
recycled in Finland.
Treatment capacity is dependent on material demand; the demand needs to in-
crease steadily before investments in new facilities become profitable. To meet
these kinds of challenges various opportunities for increasing and concentrating
material input should be studied. These include e.g. concepts combining small-

73
scale pre-treatment and large-scale processing of waste materials, integration of
waste streams from various sources and import of waste.
Many municipal and industrial customers have started to increase their de-
mands on services, requiring holistic solutions for all their waste management
needs. Currently, the most successful companies on the European waste markets
are focusing on an improved service level with holistic solutions. Higher value
services make possible increased business opportunities without increasing waste
generation levels.
As the Kyoto protocol has come into force, the steering mechanisms, such as
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) can be utilised in the waste manage-
ment sector, e.g. for the construction of recycling plants and landfill gas utilisation
projects abroad.
Opportunities in foreign markets
China
The combination of population growth, urbanisation and economic growth is creating
tremendous growth in Chinese waste generation. The growing waste volumes in China
are creating increasing pressure on waste management systems, which are not keeping
up with the development. This has led to an increasingly inadequate capacity of waste
collection and transport vehicles, which is restricting the development and utilisation of
the waste treatment facilities. China also has a significant informal sector, removing the
recyclables and affecting the composition of the waste stream. However, the scavenging
might decline in the future, but then waste sorting will become a challenge, as no sys-
tematic waste separation has been introduced.
In order to achieve success on the Chinese markets it is important to have a good un-
derstanding of the markets, to have good local partners and to have a good contact
network. The Chinese are looking for holistic problem-solving solutions. Since many
developed countries have superior environmental protection, China is taking advantage
of the know-how of foreign players, creating a market for international consulting and
technology companies on the waste management sector.
Russia
Russian waste volumes are continuously increasing, creating a demand for increased
waste management capacity. Russian waste management has a lower capacity than its
waste generation, and needs to be increased. The majority of the current players in the
market offer only collection and transport services, leaving the whole separation, recy-
cling and recovery sector wide open for new players. There is a demand for safe landfills
without leakage to the environment, and also for waste recovery and recycling plants. As
the majority of the waste is collected as mixed, there is also a great demand for waste
sorting plants, as well as on-site sorting and separate collection systems.
Municipal councils in large cities are increasingly open to development of the waste
management system by the introduction of new and more efficient technologies. In order
to finance these projects, the authorities are increasingly interested in PPP schemes.
The interest of international investors is also growing, and this could enable large-scale
investments, as the government seems reluctant to increase the waste management
budget.
5. Summary and conclusions

74
5.1 Background and approach of the study
Global trends result in increasing consumption with consequences such as in-
creased waste generation and increased demand for raw materials. The centre of
gravity of the world economy has moved towards the market in emerging coun-
tries. The waste management market is growing especially in Asia and South
America, and the focus is also shifting to African countries. Waste is increasingly
becoming a good which is traded around the world. The market drivers for the
demand and prices of recyclables vary substantially between different materials,
following the world market prices of corresponding virgin raw materials. The avail-
ability risks of materials have led to growing political and private speculation in raw
materials, resulting in high price volatility.
These megatrends reflect the environmental policies and regulations which
strongly affect the operational environment in the waste management chains.
Finnish waste legislation is largely based on EU legislation; both are largely based
on the waste hierarchy, which is a theory of the desirability of different waste man-
agement and treatment strategies. The main objective is to avoid waste genera-
tion. Material recycling is seen as the best solution for waste treatment, followed
by energy recovery and disposal as the least favourable option. Both Finnish and
EU waste legislation have specific targets for the treatment of different waste
streams. Waste chain-specific recycling targets are expected to affect product
design and innovations in the field. It is possible that in future there will be even
more specific targets, for example for different product groups. In several other
business sectors, the influence of financiers and stakeholders has grown notably
compared with legislation. This trend may be probable also in the currently strong-
ly legislation-driven waste sector.
In this project, five waste operational chains have been analysed. The analysis
methods used were Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and
Life Cycle Cost analysis (LCC). In addition, a more detailed value formation analy-
sis was carried out for selected chains. In order to create the analyses, the opera-
tional features of each chain as well as current and future requirements of the
operational environment have been examined. For all waste streams, the main


75
characteristics, material content, treatment technologies and future estimations
have been identified. The utilisation and losses of the material potential have been
analysed, as also the energy recovery potential for each waste chain.
The LCA analysis focused on the life cycle environmental impacts identified as
the most relevant in waste chains: climate change (CC) impacts, natural resources
use and toxic impacts caused by hazardous substances. The two last mentioned
were analysed only qualitatively. The results of the LCA show that the perfor-
mances of the waste chains can be enhanced by reducing the landfilling of biode-
gradable matter and increasing the recycling of metals, plastics, paper and card-
board fractions.
The operational chain level analysis and the theory of value formation have
been identified as emerging analysis techniques for waste stream research. The
value formation technique was found to be very suitable for the WEEE and ELV
waste stream, i.e. streams with high material value. Thorough value formation
analyses have been performed for these streams showing the value potential of
the materials that are currently not recovered in the conventional recycling process
which was selected as a base case.
5.2 Development needs and opportunities
The key challenge for the waste management sector is to increase recycling as a
way of reducing the overall use of natural resources. This calls for improved waste
chain management with more efficient processes and technologies. Furthermore,
product chain management, including life cycle impacts assessments, eco-design
and analysis of future scenarios, facilitates increased recycling.
A challenge clearly identified in all the waste chain analyses is the lack of good
quality data. There is a need for better quantity and quality analyses of the waste
streams, and for tools to keep track of the different waste streams during pro-
cessing. Research is needed to produce reliable data on the quantity, composition
and quality of waste material flows both prior to and after sorting and treatment
processes. This would enable better identification of the most important and most
economically feasible raw material sources and reliable estimation of their poten-
tial.
In addition, there is a clear need for databases containing updated and reliable
recycling process data which can be used in process, sustainability and business
modelling, and as data for scenario analyses. One of the challenges is efficient
material flow management and decision-making in multi-stakeholder waste chains.
The analysis of the operational chains shows that the current recycling pro-
cesses based on the crushing of multi material flows and separation of materials
from this mixed flow are not suitable for the recovery of low concentration valua-
bles. Due to mixing with other materials, they are further diluted at various pro-
cessing stages. The crushing and shredding technologies are energy-intensive,
and originally developed for more homogeneous materials than mixed waste
streams. The sustainability and efficiency of the processes could be improved by

76
optimisation and better adaptation of these stages for waste materials. The devel-
opment of crushing technologies on other sectors should also be followed.
In addition, the processes produce mixed residues which are only suitable for
low-grade uses or landfill disposal. The amount of these residues should be mini-
mised and their quality improved, in order to fulfil the requirements of stricter recy-
cling targets and the landfill ban on organic waste.
Therefore, the high rate of mixed waste treatment can be seen as one of the
main obstacles to increased utilisation of the material potential in all the waste
chains studied. Through increasing on-site sorting and developing of automatic
disassembly methods and other improved pre-separation methods as well as
through increased implementation of mechanical sorting, the proportion of mixed
waste may be reduced, thus enabling more efficient material recycling. Based on
Climate Change impact analysis, the share of collection and pre-treatment seems
to be small compared to the overall CC impacts. More sorting and pre-processing
could be introduced to the chains in order to improve quality and increase the
recovery of materials.
It was also noticed, that the quality of the product streams is degraded if impuri-
ties are not pre-separated, but mixed into the material streams during shredding
and further processing. These contaminations should be removed, and if possible
different fractions pre-separated at an early stage of the sorting and processing in
order to improve the quality of the end product. Some examples of the materials
which reduce the quality of product streams include gypsum board and insulation
materials in construction waste, copper thread coils in vehicle motors, biowaste
and aluminium in municipal and C&I waste. Treated wood, metals and PVC cause
problems in the incineration process and reduce utilization possibilities for the ash,
which is why they should be separated more efficiently.
In order to improve the material separation efficiency, identification, detection
and separation technologies need to be further developed and adapted to the
different stages of recycling processes, from pre-treatment to the quality control of
the product. Improved identification and detection methods enable more efficient
separation results and higher quality and value of recovered materials. The possi-
bilities of technology transfer from other sectors should also be assessed. Espe-
cially important is e.g. the identification of different plastic types including black
and dark plastics, as well as contaminations, such as chlorine, flame retardants
and heavy metals. Also methods for better separation of mixed waste fractions are
needed. For management of the whole treatment chain, real-time monitoring of
different flows and on-line quality control of product streams are needed.
Increased recycling, incineration and the landfill ban of organic materials affect
the quality of waste to be landfilled in future. They also enable new landfill con-
cepts where landfills are turned into storage areas of unused materials. The ef-
fects of the changes to the materials disposed in future as well as landfill practices
and concepts should also be studied.

77
5.3 Material flow specific development needs
In the future, finding technologies enabling the implementation of the requirements
of the stricter waste legislation and future strategic targets is important. There is a
clear need to find new economically viable solutions for recovering scarce materi-
als from waste streams. This requires a new way of thinking for the treatment of
the waste chains. To evaluate the economic viability and sustainability of potential
recycling concepts, new integrated modelling concepts need to be developed.
These can be based mainly on adaptation and integration of models used by other
sectors.
The 70% material recycling of C&D waste in Finnish circumstances will become
difficult to accomplish, which is why research on separation and recycling technol-
ogies for C&D waste should be of specific research interest in the future. There is
a special need for new ways of recycling waste wood, but also for the develop-
ment of recycling of smaller fractions, such as plastics, insulating materials, glass
and waste gypsum.
The landfill ban of organic materials will create some new challenges; Besides
the incineration of mixed household waste, new solutions for increased recovery of
plastics and biowaste will be needed in order to follow the waste hierarchy and to
implement the material recycling targets of the legislation. The potential for inte-
grated utilisation of the same type of plastics from different sources should be
further studied. The need to optimise the treatment processes by identifying and
exploiting the synergies both inside and between waste chains also applies to
other material streams and treatment processes. The opportunities for adding
value to biowaste by combined material (e.g. nutrients, raw materials of chemicals
and bioplastics) and energy recovery as well as integrated treatment with other
waste streams, such as municipal and industrial sludges, agricultural waste, etc.
The stricter recycling targets of the ELV and WEEE require improvements both
in collection and recovery efficiency, including minimisation and better recovery of
shredder waste from ELV treatment. These chains also contain low concentration
valuable materials, which are difficult to recover from the waste stream.

78
Acknowledgements
The project was funded by Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation), a group of companies and participating research institutes. The re-
search group would like to express their gratitude to the funding partners, as well
as to the steering group and other representatives of the companies for their sup-
port during the project and for their collaboration in the definition of waste value
chains and the delivery of process data needed in the analyses.

79
References
Ajanko, S., Moilanen, A. & Juvonen, J. 2005. Kierrtyspolttoaineiden laadunval-
vonta. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Publications 587.
59 p. ISBN 951-38-6685-8.
Al-Salem, S.M., Baeyens & P.L. 2010. The valorization of plastic solid waste
(PSW) by primary to quaternary routes: From re-use to energy and
chemicals. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 36, 103129.
Chancerel, P. & Rotter, S. 2009. Recycling-oriented characterization of small
waste electrical and electronic equipment; Waste Management, 29,
23362352.
Crowe, M., Elser, A., Gpfert, B., Mertins, L., Meyer, T., Jrgen Schmid, M., Spill-
ner, A. & Strbel, R. 2003. Waste from electrical and electronic equip-
ment (WEEE) quantities, dangerous substances and treatment meth-
ods. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Delgado, C., Barruetabea, L. & Salas, O. 2007. Assessment of Environmental
Advantages and Drawbacks in Existing Polymer Recovery Systems.
IPTS, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. EUR 22939 EN - 2007.
EEA SOER 2010. The European Environment State and Outlook. European Envi-
ronment Agency.
Environment 2009. Rakentamisen jtteet (in Finnish). [Cited: November 21, 2012.]
http://www.environment.fi
EU 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
EU 2000. Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
end-of life vehicles (ELV).
EU 2003. EU Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE).
EU 2006a. Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Partliament and of the Council
on the management of waste from the extractive industries.

80
EU 2006b. Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries
and accumulators
EU 2008a. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives.
EU 2008b. The Communication of the European Commission on better ship dis-
mantling (COM (2008) 767 final)
EU 2008c. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast
17367/08). Proposal from European Commission 8 December 2008.
EU 2010. The Communication of the European Commission's on future steps in
bio-waste management in the European Union (COM(2010)235 final).
uP 2007. Lot 3. Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and Computer Moni-
tors, Final Report (Task 18), ISSN 1404191X, IVF Report 07004.
European Commission 2006. A study to examine the benefits of the End-of-Life
Vehicles Directive and the costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015
targets for recycling, re-use and recovery under the ELV Directive, GHK /
BIOIS, May 2006. [Cited: April 3, 2012.] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
waste/elv_study.htm
European Commission 2011. Final report task 2 Management of C&D waste. Bio
Intelligence Service. February 2011.
European Commission 2012a. Environment, Waste, End-of-Life Vehicles. [Cited:
March 19, 2012.] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm
European Commission 2012d. Environmental Data Centre on Waste, End-of-life
Vehicles (ELVs), Re-use and Recovery Rate, Materials from shredding
(in tonnes per year) of end-of-life vehicles arising in the Member State
and treated within the Member State. Eurostat. [Cited: March 21, 2012.]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestre
ams/elvs
European Commission 2012e. Environmental Data Centre on Waste, End-of-life
Vehicles (ELVs), Re-use and Recovery Rate, Materials from shredding
(in tonnes per year) of end-of-life vehicles arising in the Member State

81
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestre
ams/elvs.
European Commission 2012f. Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Eurobase:
Re-use and Recovery Rates for End-of-Life vehicles, Eurostat. [Cited:
June 4, 2012.] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/
data/wastestreams/elvs
Eurostat 2008. WEEE key statistics and data: WEEE year 2008. [Cited: March 30,
2011.]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/key_waste_stre
ams/waste_electrical_electronic_equipment_weee
Eurostat 2010. Generation of waste (tonnes) (env_wasgen) Database. Waste
statistics.
Fatta, D., Papadopoulos, A., Avramikos, E., Sgourou, E., Moustakas, K.,
Kourmoussis, F., Mentzis, A. & Loizidou, M. 2003. Generation and man-
agement of construction and demolition waste in Greece an existing
challenge. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40/1, pp. 8191.
Finnish Car Recycling 2012a. Press release. New record in in car recycling in
2012 (17.2.2012). Finnish Car Recycling Ltd. [Cited: March 21, 2012.]
http://www.autokierratys.fi/Ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet.aspx?kieli=en-US
Finnish Car Recycling 2012b. Consumers, Recycling system, Recyclable materi-
als. Finnish Car Recycling Ltd. [Cited: March 26, 2012.]
http://www.autokierratys.fi/Kuluttajille/Artikkeli.aspx?julkaisuID=5977
Finnish Ministry of the Environment 2010. Yhdess kestvn tulevaisuuteen.
Ympristvastuullinen, osallisuutta tukeva yhteiskunta, monimuotoinen
luonto ja hyvinvointia edistv ymprist. Ympristministerin tulevai-
suuskatsaus 2010 (in Finnish).
Fisher, C., Bakas, I., Bjrn, A., Tojo, N., Lwe, C., 2011. Green economy and
recycling in Europe. European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consump-
tion and Production, ETC/SCP Working paper 5/2011. 76 p.
Forton, O.T., Harder, M.K. & Moles, N.R. 2006. Value from shredder waste: On-
going limitations in the UK. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Re-
cycling, 46(2006), pp. 104113.

82
Frost & Sullivan 2006. Strategic Analysis of the Western European Municipal
Waste Management Services Market. Market report.
Frost & Sullivan 2010. Strategic Opportunities in the European Waste Recycling
Market. Market report.
Galvagno, S. Fortuna, F., Cornacchia, G., Casu, S., Coppola, T., Sharma, V.K.
2001. Pyrolysis process for treatment of automobile shredder residue:
preliminary experimental results. Energy Conversion and Management,
42, 573586.
Heiskanen, R. 2009. Perusmetallien hintojen jyrkk nousu laantuu. Nordea Talo-
usnkymt. Syyskuu 2009.
Hellman, S. & Isoaho, S. 2006. Toivonen Yhtit Oy, Viljakkala-hankkeeseen liitty-
vt materiaalianalyysit. Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto, bio- ja ymprist-
tekniikan laitos.
Hietanen, O., Lauttamki, V., Vehmas, J., Heikkil, J. & Lehmann- Chadha, M.
2006. Jtealan megatrendit ja haasteet Euroopassa. Loppuraportti.
TUTU-julkaisuja 5/2006.
Huhtinen, K., Lilja, R., Sokka, L., Salmenper, H. & Runsten, S. 2007. Valtakun-
nallinen jtesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016. Taustaraportti. Suomen Ympris-
t 16, Suomen ympristkeskus, asiantuntijapalveluosasto.
Ignatius, S., Myllymaa, T. & Dahlbo, H. 2009. Shk- ja elektroniikkaromun ksit-
tely Suomessa. Suomen ympristkeskuksen raportteja 20/2009 (in Fin-
nish). [Cited: November 20, 2012] http://www.ymparisto.fi/syke/julkaisut
ISO 22628:2002. Road vehicle Recyclability and recoverability Calculation
method. International Organization for Standardization.
Jrvinen, T., Malinen, J., Tiitta, M. & Teppola, P. 2007. State of art selvitys puun
kosteusmittauksesta. VTT Research Report VTT-R-013325-07. Espoo,
Finland. 90 p. [Cited: November 20, 2012.] http://www.metsateho.fi/
files/metsateho/Erillisjulkaisut/State_of_art_selvitys_puun_kosteusmittau
ksesta_2007_VTT.pdf
Kim, J.-W., Mun, T.-Y., Kim, J.-O. & Kim, J.-S. 2011. Air gasification of mixed
plastic wastes using a two-stage gasifier for production of producer gas
with low tar and a high calorific value. Fuel, 90, pp. 22662272.

83
Kojo, R. & Lilja, R. 2011. Talonrakentamisen materiaalitehokkuuden edistminen
(in Finnish). Finnish Ministry of the Environment.
Korppinen, S. 2010. Raaka-ainemarkkinoiden epvakaisuus hankinnan haastee-
na. Masters thesis. Lappeenranta University of Technology.
Laine-Ylijoki, J., Syrj, J.-J. & Wahlstrm, M. 2003. Rntgenfluoresenssi-
menetelmt kierrtyspolttoaineiden pikalaadunvalvonnassa (in Finnish).
VTT Research Notes 2215. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland,
Espoo. 51 p.
Luda, M.P., Euringer, N., Moratti, U., Zanetti, M. 2005. WEEE recycling: pyrolysis
of fire retardant model polymers. Waste Management, 25, 203208.
Mancini, G., Tamma, R., & Viotti, P. 2010. Thermal process of fluff: Preliminary
tests on a full-scale treatment plant. ScienceDirect, pp. 113.
Martin Gmbh 2011. SYNCOM-Plus process. [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.martingmbh.de/index_en.php?level=2&CatID=6.73&inhalt_id=
60
Moliis, K., Teerioja, N. & Ollikainen, M. 2009. Ennuste yhdyskuntajtteen kehityk-
sest vuoteen 2030 (in Finnish). Discussion Papers 41. University of
Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management.53 p.
Monier, V., Hestin, M., Trarieux, M., Mimid, S., Domrse, L., Van Acoleyen, M.,
Hjerp, P. & Mudgal, S. 2011. Study on the management of construction
and demolition waste in the EU. Contract 07.0307/2009/540863/SER/G2,
Final report for the European Commission (DG Environment).
Morselli, L., Santini, A., Passarini, F. & Vasura, I. 2010. Automotive shredder resi-
due (ASR) characterization for a valuable management. Journal of Was-
te Management, 30(2010), pp. 22282234.
Myllymaa, T., Moliis, K., Tohka, A., Isoaho, S., Zevenhoven, M., Ollikainen, M. &
Dahlbo, H. 2008. Jtteiden kierrtyksen ja polton ympristvaikutukset ja
kustannukset jtehuollon vaihtoehtojen tarkastelu alueellisesta nk-
kulmasta (in Finnish). Suomen ymprist 39. Finnish Environment Insti-
tute. [Cited: November 20, 2012] http://www.environment.fi
Nourreddine, M. 2007. Recycling of auto shredder residue. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, A139(2007), pp. 481490.

84
OECD 2006. Improving Recycling markets. Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development. 186 p.
OECD 2011. Resource compendium of PRTR release estimation techniques part
IV: Summary of techniques for releases from products version 1.0. Envi-
ronment, Health and Safety Publications Series on Pollutant Release and
Transfer Registers no. 12 (Part. 2) Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
Ogilvie, S.M. 2004. WEEE & Hazardous Waste. Report produced for DEFRA.
AEAT/ENV/R/1688. AEA Technology, Oxfordshire, UK. [Cited: Novem-
ber 21, 2012.] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/producer
/electrical/documents/weee-hazwaste.pdf
Redin, L., Hjelt, M. & Marklund, S. 2010. Co-combustion of shredder residues and
municipal solid waste in a Swedish municipal solid waste incinerator.
Journal of Waste Management & Research, 19(2001), pp. 518525.
Schneider, J., Karigl, B., Neubauer, C., Tesar, M., Oliva, J. and Read, B. 2010.
End-of-life vehicles: Legal aspects, national practices and recommenda-
tions for future successful approach. The European Parliaments Com-
mittee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
Shuh, C., Strohmer, S. & Zetterqvist, S. 2011. Raw Material Strategy Volatility is
here to stay. ATKearney, Chicago, USA. [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.atkearney.at/content/misc/wrapper.php/id/50450/area/herstell
ung/name/pdf_raw_material_strategy_13166870672ace.pdf
Statistics Finland 2011a. Jtetilasto. [Cited: March 5, 2011.]http://www.tilasto
keskus.fi/til/jate/index.html
Statistics Finland 2011b. Kansantalous. [Cited: May 3, 2011.]
http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kansantalous.html
SYKE 2003. Jtteiden tuonti ja vienti kasvaa sek Suomessa ett muualla (in
Finnish). Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). [Cited: November 20,
2012] http://www.environment.fi
SYKE 2005. Jtteiden vienti ja tuonti tasaisessa kasvussa (in Finnish). Finnish
Environment Institute (SYKE). [Cited: November 20, 2012.]

85
Tange, L. & Drohmann, D. 2004. Waste electrical and electronic equipment plas-
tics with brominated flame retardants from legislation to separate
treatment thermal processes. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 88,
3540.
Thermoselect 2003. An advanced field proven high temperature recycling process.
October 1215, 2003. Locarno, Switzerland. [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.thermoselect.com/news/2003-10-12,%20Gasification
%20Technologies%20Council%20%20-%20USA.pdf
Tojo, N. & Fisher, C. 2011. Europe as a recycling society. European Topic Centre
on Sustainable Consumption and Production, ETC/SCP Working paper
2/2011. 25 p.
Trn, M., Laaksonen, J. & Heiskanen, J. 2010. Value chain approach to WEEE
management. EcoBalance, November 912, 2010. Tokyo, Japan. The
Institute of Life Cycle Assessment Japan.
United Nations University 2007. 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Elec-
trical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Final Report.
UNRDC 2009. From waste to resource: an abstract of world waste survey 2009.
Prepared by Cyclope and Veolia Environmental Services. [Cited: No-
vember 20, 2012.] http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/spc/docs/plenary3/PS3-F-
Veolia_Hierso-Print%20abstract.pdf
Waste-Stream EU 2011. Plastics Market. [Cited: April 26, 2011.] http://www.waste-
stream.com/html/plastics_market.html
Vermeulen, I., Van Caneghem, J., Block, C. B. (Chantal B.), Baeyens, J. &
Vandecasteele, C. 2011. Automotive shredder residue (ASR): Reviewing
its production from end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and its recycling, energy or
chemicals valorisation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 190(2011), pp.
827.
World Bank 1999. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. Technical guidance report.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World
Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG%20folder/Waste%2
0Incineration.pdf
WRAP 2006. UK Plastics Waste A review of supplies for recycling, global market
demand, future trends and associated risks. Waste & Resources Action

86
Programme, Banbury, Oxon, UK. [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK%20Plastics%20Waste.pdf


1/1
Appendix 1: Analysis reports produced during
the project
The analysis reports can be obtained upon request from the responsible research
organisation.

Aalto University:
Maria Trn and Juha Kaila. Recycling and utilization methods and value
chains for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). 36 p.
Jukka Heiskanen, Juha Kaila and Hanna Vanhanen. Recycling and utili-
zation methods and value chains for end-of-life vehicle (ELV). 46 p.
Johanna Laaksonen and Juha Kaila. Recycling and utilization methods
and value chains for commercial and industrial waste (C&I). 55 p.

Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE):
Dahlbo, H., Jouttijrvi, T., Suoheimo, P., Retkin, R., Sorvari, J. & Mylly-
maa T. 2012. LCA and BAT assessments of waste recovery and man-
agement value chains NeReMa-project. 54 p.
Mattila, T., Sironen, S. & Lhtinen, K. 2012. Environmental life cycle cost-
ing of new waste recycling facilities. 14 p.
Saramki, K. 2012. Strategies, policies and legislation affecting the waste
management sector in the future. 20 p.

Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT):
Jouni Havukainen. Technical analysis: Waste to Energy. 45 p.

Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT):
Nina Teirasvuo. Identification, Monitoring and Separation Methods. 74 p.

Construction and demolition waste:
John Bachr. Applications and requirements of C&D waste. 12 p.
John Bachr. Material flow- and technical analysis report of C&D-waste.
37 p.
Johannes Jermakka. Construction and Demolition waste stream analysis.
8 p.
Malin Meinander. C&D waste market analysis. 20 p.
Peter Nielsen. Overview of the construction and demolition waste man-
agement in the Flanders region in Belgium. 24 p.
Hannele Kuosa. Reuse of recycled aggregates and other C&D wastes.
69 p.
Hironori Nagai. Japan Concrete Recycling: Past, Present and Future. 33 p.
Hironori Nagai. Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling in Japan.
36 p.

1/2
Municipal solid waste:
John Bachr. Applications and requirements of MSW. 17 p.
John Bachr. Material flow- and technical analysis report of MSW. 59 p.
Johannes Jermakka. Municipal solid waste stream analysis. 33 p.
Malin Meinander. MSW waste market analysis. 35 p.
Malin Meinander. MSW cost analysis. 16 p.

2/1
Appendix 2: Methodology of MFA and building
it with STAN 2.0 software
Material flow analysis (MFA) is a descriptive approach which provides snapshots
of parts of the physical economy. MFA refers to the analysis of the throughput of
process chain comprising extraction or harvest, chemical transformation, manufac-
turing, consumption, recycling and disposal of materials (Brigenzu et al., 2002).
The analysis is based on physical units quantifying the inputs and outputs of pre-
viously mentioned processes. There are different types of MFAs depending on the
angle of focus. Some MFAs are focused on the material or the substance flow,
while others are focused on a certain area where a descriptive flow map has been
performed.

System boundaries
The system boundaries have to be carefully chosen since they determine the
scope of the analysis. The model can have different types of boundaries depend-
ing on the focusing level. For example, MFA for waste can have boundaries for the
whole waste chain and sub-boundaries for a certain recycling factory within the
waste chain.

Building the model
After the system boundaries have been set, the model of the MFA can be built.
The model assumes that the difference between inputs and outputs is 0 if there is
no stock in the process. In addition, the model can calculate concentrations in
different flows at which time the mass is multiplied with the concentration of a
certain substance. The model can be built at many levels, and sub-systems can
be built within processes.

System level
The system level is the holistic description of the model. This level describes the
material flows over the whole material chain which is examined. It may include
flows, processes (which can consist of sub-processes) and stocks. In Figure A the
system level of the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) is presented.

Process level (sub-system)
In the STAN 2.0 software sub-systems can be built inside a process. This provides
a possibility to model the inner structure of a process in more detail (Cencic,
2008). Sub-system must have the same amount of inputs and outputs as the pro-
cess (box) in the upper system level. In Figure B the Splitting plant from Figure A
is opened as a sub-system.
Comparing Figures A and B, it can be seen that in the input and output flows for
the sub-system in Figure B are the same as for the Splitting plant process box.

2/2
Input data and result display
A critical section of MFA is the data which is fed to the model which then calcu-
lates the material flows. The data should be carefully chosen since the model does
not editorialize at all the numbers which are entered into the model. Data can be
entered manually with units and data uncertainties for different data layers and
time periods (Cencic, 2008). The uncertainties are extended over the process
chain by data reconciliation. In Figure C the data has been entered into the model
which was presented in Figure A.
The STAN software presents the flows in form of Sankey diagrams on the
drawing area. Thereby the width of an arrow is displayed as proportional to its
mass flow value (Cencic, 2008). In addition, the analysis can be performed for
different materials/concentrations in the feed such as metals. In this case, the flow
of metals is displayed at the process drawings in the same way as the MSW (Fig-
ure C).

Figure A. Model of the system. (Cencic, 2008)

2/3

Figure B. Model of the subsystem of the splitting plant from Figure A. (Cencic,
2008)

Figure C. Model of the system including data. (Cencic, 2008)


2/4
References

Brigenzu, S,, Schtz, H. & Moll, s. 2003. Rational for and interpretation of econo-
my-wide materials flow analysis and derived indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecol-
ogy 7(2):4243

Cencic, O. 2008. Material Flow Analysis with Software STAN. [Cited January 12,
2012]. http://www.enviroinfo2008.org/dokumente/2_thursday/2-
4_cencic_enviroinfo.pdf

3/1
Construction and demolition waste (C&D waste) is all waste other than regular
household waste produced at a construction site (Finnish Legislation 295/1997). It
includes neither waste reused directly on-site without any processing nor waste
generated by the construction industry off-site (Perl & Nippala, 1998). A typical
feature of C & D waste is that it is not continuously generated, and its characteris-
tics varies due to the site specific situation. C&D waste is commonly very hetero-
geneous, with a high mineral composition and a low content of combustible and
biologically degradable matter. (Monier et al., 2011)
The C&D waste generators are mainly construction and demolition companies,
as small construction sites (private houses) are not covered by the C&D waste
legislation which has a waste volume limit at 5 t. Waste producers are obliged to
provide for appropriate management of the waste according to Finnish waste
legislation. The role of the municipalities is to guide and govern the sorting and
treatment of C&D waste.
Figure A illustrates the C&D waste chain for recycling. The C&D waste is com-
monly collected and transported to treatment facilities directly from the construc-
tion site by the contractor. The quality of the waste is influenced by the perfor-
mance/specifications/requirements of selective demolition. The further processing
generally includes only mechanical processing and further refining or utilization as
material or as fuel in energy production. At all stages some rejects are generated.


3/2

Figure A. The C&D waste cycle containing generation, processing and utilisation.
C&D wastes are generated at three types of construction sites: renovation (27%),
demolition (57%) and construction (16%) (Environment, 2009). Each of these sites
produces waste with different composition and characteristics. The waste streams
of construction sites are mostly clean material surpluses which are not mixed or
contaminated. Demolition and renovation waste, on the other hand, is mixed and
contaminated and thus also more difficult to recover. (Monier et al., 2011)
The waste produced at construction sites can be divided into production
waste (losses, left overs and side materials) and packaging waste. Since
material efficiency affects project costs, the minimization of production
waste is often a priority for the construction site, thus reducing waste
generation. (Hurme, 2007.)
On the renovation site, materials or components such as windows etc.
are dismantled separately and mainly collected for recycling. Dismantling
is done mainly by human labour inside the building. (Henriks & Janssen,
2001.)
Demolition can be implemented as selective, partially selective or non-
selective; partially selective demolition is used in Finland. Selective
demolition is the dismantling of the building using non-destructive me-
chanical tools to separate materials for reusing and recycling. The pro-

3/3
duced fractions are clean from hazardous contaminants and materials
that cannot be recycled (Kourmpanis et al., 2008.)
In Finland it is estimated that approximately 2 Mt of C&D waste generated from
house construction sites in 2007. Approximately 38% was recycled as material,
35% recovered as energy, 6% utilized at landfills and 21% landfilled. Figure B
presents the estimations made of construction, rehabilitation and demolition waste
produced in Finland in 19901997 and 20002004. The Finnish National Waste
Plan for 2016 sets the target to 70% reuse, recycling and recovery. However, the
EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) requires a 70% reuse and recycling
rate by 2020, excluding energy recovery (EU, 2008). In northern Europe wood is
the main construction material, whereas brick and concrete are dominating else-
where. As energy recovery is not seen as recycling in the EU waste framework
directive, Finland will have some problems achieving the 70% recycling rate.

Figure B. Estimations of C&D waste from construction, renovation and demolition
activities in Finland [1000 t/a] 19902010 (Perl et al., 2006; Perl, 1998; Statis-
tics Finland 2011; Eurostat 2010).
When recycling construction and demolition waste, the waste must be thoroughly
separated either through on-site sorting or in mechanical sorting facilities (Zhao et
al., 2010). On-site sorting maintains a better waste quality than mechanical sort-
ing. On-site sorting of C&D waste is mandatory in Finland, unless circumstances
make it impossible to implement or it is economically much more expensive than
other alternatives.
In most cases the waste fractions require some kind of processing to recover
economically profitable materials. Mechanical processing is the most common
treatment method. The processing is usually implemented sequentially: common
process steps are size reduction, size controlling and separation/enrichment of
desired material. The processing can be put into practice either on the work site
(on-site) or at a recycling centre (off-site).

3/4
Metals makes up slightly below 15% of the C&D-waste, of which approx-
imately 75% is sorted for recycling (Perl et al., 2006). Furthermore,
metals separated from the other waste streams are collected for metal
recycling; altogether approximately 91% of the C&D waste metals are re-
covered. The majority of the scrap metals are clean fractions, which are
sold directly to recyclers. The mixed metals need mechanical sorting be-
fore utilisation; they are first shredded, after which magnetic separators
remove iron (98%). Then a density separation removes non-ferrous met-
als such as copper, aluminium and stainless steel (RST). This fraction is
around 1% of the total input; the remaining 1% is reject material. Metals
are easy to recycle as material together with other scrap metal streams.
The quality of metal fraction is vital for the further refining processing in
order to minimize the possible damages which might occur when too
much impurities exists in the feed.
Approximately 35% of the C&D waste is concrete, of which approximately
70% is sorted for recycling (Uusiouutiset, 2008). Furthermore, concrete
separated from the mixed waste is collected for recycling; altogether ap-
proximately 84% of the C&D waste concrete is recovered. Concrete is
made from cement, water and aggregates (sand and gravel or crushed
stone); reinforced concrete consists of steel as well. Ceramic waste is
quite similar to concrete waste, although it is a homogeneous material
without steel reinforcement; ceramic waste is commonly treated as ag-
gregates. Bricks and tiles are very durable and can be reused after
demolition. Reuse of tiles is used only for the retro and green image,
and is not a common practise in Finland, as reuse is more expensive
than utilisation of virgin tiles.
o The mineral waste is recycled into aggregates by crushing and
sieving the concrete into suitable sized fractions and removing
impurities (0.5%) and steel (approximately 1.5%). The aggre-
gates can be used in earthworks and as aggregates in e.g. con-
crete production although the cement needs to be virgin. The
main barrier to the recycling of the mineral fraction of C&D
waste is the easy and cheap access to virgin raw materials.
(Monier et al., 2011)
Gypsum is used in non-bearing structures for interior surface materials.
Construction waste gypsum is clean and can be recycled as a material,
but demolition and renovation waste is harder to recycle, as the plaster-
boards has more contaminants, such as paint, nails, screws, insulation,
and wallpaper. During the recovery process, the paper is removed and
the gypsum crushed into a powder, which is sent to the plasterboard
manufacturer. The paper (approximately 6%) is commonly recovered as
energy. Paper contaminations in the gypsum fraction create poor quality
plasterboard, why high recycling rates are impossible.
The wood fraction makes up approximately 35% of the C&D-waste, of
which approximately 70% is sorted for recycling. Furthermore, wood sep-

3/5
arated from the mixed waste is collected for recycling; altogether approx-
imately 88% of the C&D waste wood is recovered. The C&D wood waste
is quite a heterogeneous fraction; construction waste is quite clean con-
taining mainly timber, while renovation and demolition is contaminated by
coating, such as paint and preservatives. The wood is first shredded into
smaller particle size then magnetic separation removes nails and angle
irons. The wood waste is commonly contaminated, thus energy recovery
is the only suitable alternative for wood treatment. (Alakangas & Wiik,
2008)
Energy waste contains mainly plastics and fibres such as paper which
have rather high calorific value. The processing to Solid Recovered Fuel
(SRF) is commonly screening, magnetic separation, shredding, eddy cur-
rent separation and air classification. The product is used as a fuel in en-
ergy production.
Mixed waste makes up approximately 40% of the C&D waste. Of this ap-
proximately 50% is landfilled and 50% recovered as material or energy.
Large pieces of rocks, stones, wood and reject (PVC-plastic, roofing felt
etc.) are removed manually. The large stones are processed into aggre-
gates, while the wood is used in energy utilization and the reject is land-
filled. After the manual sorting, the mixed waste is shredded. Then a
magnetic separator removes the iron (approximately 7.5%), after which
the waste stream is sieved to separate fines (approximately 30%) to be
used in landfill constructions. Non-magnetic metals (Al and Cu) are re-
moved from the large fraction using eddy current. All metals are recycled.
Finally, an air separation or another density based separation produces a
high calorific value fraction (light) and a low calorific value fraction
(heavy). The light fraction is used for energy utilisation as REF, while the
heavy fraction is landfilled.

Future waste generation scenarios
Figure B (CD estimations) indicates that rehabilitation activities have grown while
construction and demolition activities have been rather stable since 1995. It can
be assumed on the basis of the age distribution of the Finnish housing stock that
rehabilitation activities will still grow (Jermakka, 2011). Rehabilitation activities
generate more wood and metals, but less minerals than the other C&D activities.
On the other hand, large apartment buildings from the 1960s and 1970s are get-
ting older, and increased demolition might generate more minerals (Kojo & Lilja,
2011). Table A present, the current composition of C&D-waste, as well as estima-
tions for two future scenarios.
Scenario 1 presents increased renovation while demolition remains sta-
ble. The wood fraction would increase, as well as metal content, while
minerals would decrease.

3/6
Scenario 2 presents increased demolition while renovation remains sta-
ble. The mineral fraction would increase, while wood and metal would
decrease.
Table A. The compositions of current state and two scenarios.
Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Metals% 13.5 15 10
Minerals &
Concrete%
35.0 20 50
Wood% 36.0 45 20
Other% 15.5 20 20

References
Alakangas, E. & Wiik, C. 2008. Kytst poistetun puun luokittelu ja hyvien kytn-
tjen kuvaus. VTT Research Report VTT-R-04989-08. VTT Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Espoo.
C&D waste management in Europe
The C&D waste generation of the EU member countries varies between 0.04 t/cap in
Latvia to 5.9 t/cap in Luxembourg with an average 1.09 t/cap. At the European level
there are major differences in what is actually reported as CDW, resulting in practically
non-comparable statistics. (Eionet, 2009; Eurostat, 2010)
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) emphasises the waste hierarchy. The
directive requires EU member states by 2020 to achieve a 70% (weight) preparation rate
for reuse, recycling and material recovery, but excluding energy recovery. The directive
aims at unifying the waste and recycling definitions throughout the union, allowing for
similar regulation in all member countries. (EU, 2008)
The average recycling rate for C&D waste in the EU is 46 %, although the differences
are significant between member countries. There are also major differences at the Euro-
pean level in how recycling is actually reported. Of the EU member countries, 6 coun-
tries report recycling rates exceeding the target of the directive, 3 countries report recy-
cling rates of 6070%, 4 countries report recycling rates of 4060%, and 8 countries
report recycling rates lower than 40%. (Monier et al., 2011)
For many years the Flanders region (Belgium) has been a leading player in the man-
agement of construction and demolition (C&D) waste due clear governmental initiatives
providing statistical information about waste amount and quality, promoting selective
demolition with standardised specifications, introducing certificates for aggregates, clear
environmental specifications for recycling.

3/7
Eionet 2009. European Topic Center on Sustainable Consumption and Produc-
tion. Household waste. [Cited: August 2, 2011.]
http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/definitions/household
http://www.environment.fiEU 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain
directives.
Eurostat 2010. Generation of waste (tonnes) (env_wasgen) Database. Waste
statistics.
Finnish Legislation 295/1997. Valtioneuvoston pts rakennusjtteist (in Fin-
nish).
Henriks, F. & Janssen, G.M.T. 2001. Construction and demolition waste: general
process aspect. HERON, 46(2).
Hurme, P. 2007. Hukkamateriaalien ja jtteiden kytn tehokkuus rakentamises-
sa. Opinnytety. Tampereen Ammattikorkeakoulu.
Jermakka, J. 2011. NeReMa Construction & Demolition waste stream analysis.
Unpublished report.
Kojo, R. & Lilja, R. 2011. Talonrakentamisen materiaalitehokkuuden edistminen.
Ympristministeri.
Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, K., Moustakas, M., Stylianou, K.J. & Haralambo-
us, M.L. 2008. Premilinary study for the management of construction and demoli-
tion waste. Waste Management & Research, 26, p. 267275.
Monier, V., Hestin, M., Trarieux, M., Mimid, S., Domrse, L., Van Acoleyen, M.,
Hjerp, P. & Mudgal, S. 2011. Study on the management of construction and demo-
lition waste in the EU. Contract 07.0307/2009/540863/SER/G2, Final report for the
European Commission (DG Environment).
Perl, A. & Nippala, E. 1998. Rakentamisen jtteet ja niiden hytykytt (in Fin-
nish). Espoo, Finland: VTT Rakennustekniikka.
Perl, A., Rintanen, R., Nuuttila, H. & Mensivu, S. 2006. Vuoden 2004 raken-
nusjtetilastoa tukeva VTT:n asiantuntijaty. VTT Research Report VTT-R-06178-
06. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.
Statistics Finland 2011a. Jtetilasto. [Cited: March 5,
2011.]http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/jate/index.html

3/8
Uusiouutiset 2008. Vanhojen kerrostalojen betoni uusiokyttn (in Finnish). Vol.
19, p. 46.
Zhao, W., Leeftink, R.B. & Rotter, V.S. 2010. Evaluation of the economic feasibility
for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China The case of
Chongqing. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, pp. 377389.


4/1
Commercial and Industrial waste (C&I) is the waste produced by institutions,
commerce and industry, excluding production and process waste, and is compa-
rable to municipal solid waste (MSW). It is often collected and treated, and usually
reported together with MSW. C&I waste is very similar to MSW, but the fractions,
especially plastics and metals, can be cleaner than the same fractions in MSW.
The quantities of similar materials can also be larger than in MSW, which makes
some of the fractions good for recycling.
The composition of commercial and industrial waste varies a great deal accord-
ing to the origin of the waste. The main producers of C&I waste are offices,
schools, restaurants, hotels, hospitals and retail stores. The main fractions of
commercial waste are similar to those of municipal solid waste, but the shares of
different fractions are different. The main flows and stakeholders of C&I waste
chain are presented in Figure A.

Figure A. Primary flows and stakeholders in C&I waste management life cycle.
Different entities produce and recycle different fractions. Recyclables from C&I
consist of plastics, paper, cardboard, metals, and glass, which are suitable for
recycling and reuse. Plastics, paper and cardboard are also suitable for incinera-
tion, but this is not a preferred option for handling waste according to the EU

4/2
waste hierarchy (EU, 2008). The waste which is not source-separated as a pure
material fraction ends up usually in mixed waste or is source-separated as an
energy fraction or biowaste.
In the C&I sector one of the most economically and materially interesting waste
producer groups is retail and wholesale. They produce large amounts of packag-
ing waste, which is clean and consistent and easy to use for recycling. Retail
stores alone use around 60 000 tons of packaging materials per year, more than
half of it wood from pallets (FGTA, 2003). According to Finnish Grocery Trade
Association (FGTA, 2003), the greatest waste fractions from retail stores are OCC
35%, energy fraction 40%, and biowaste 15%.
In this research, an estimate was made of C&I waste generation and general
material flows in Finland. The estimation is based on statistics of MSW and C&I
waste. It has also to be remembered that the statistics are estimations and not
accurate numbers. There are no general statistics in Finland concerning the gen-
eration of C&I waste, and therefore MSW numbers were applied in some cases.
The energy fraction and mixed waste were not considered as generated fractions
in this research. Waste generated consists of material fractions, and the goal in
this research was to make a Material Flow Analysis (MFA) of all the significant
materials that C&I sector generates. The approach was to calculate the amount of
material generated in each material category and then of these the share that was
source-separated. The remainder of each material goes to mixed waste. From all
these fractions it was estimated how much was ending up to landfill, recycling and
incineration. This differs from the typical approach to waste management fractions,
but in order to be able to track the flows completely, this kind of methodological
approach is needed.

Key actors
The municipalities organize most of the municipal waste management and waste
collection in Finland. Practically all waste collection and transport is done by pri-
vate companies either on municipal contracts or direct contracts with waste pro-
ducers. The regulations by which waste fractions are collected and how the waste
management is handled, differ according to the municipality. Some municipal
waste companies work in co-operation with the private recycling companies. (JLY,
2011.)
In Finland, the private companies as waste producers, are responsible to or-
ganize their own waste management. If the companies are located, for example, in
properties with households, the municipal waste management usually takes care
of the companys waste management, and the company pays the costs of waste
management for the property owners. (Kaila et al., 2006)
Usually the waste producer invites different waste management companies to
tender and chooses one according to price and service. Also, the reputation of a
bidder may affect the selection process. In some cases if the organization is part
of a chain, for example a retail store, the chain may organize the bidding process
to help the stores. In this way, the stores may get a better offer because the waste

4/3
management company gets more volume (Salminen, 2011; Koivuniemi, et al.,
2012; Pelin, 2012; Koivisto, 2012).
Depending on the company and the types of waste produced, the effects of
waste legislation are different. The new waste legislation comes into force on May
1, 2012. The biggest effects of the new waste legislation in C&I sector are mainly
caused by the restriction on delivering biowaste to landfills (Salminen, 2011; Pelin,
2012; Koivuniemi & Rintala, 2012). The target of the new waste legislation is to
increase recycling, but incineration probably also increases.
Another significant factor affecting C&I waste management is EU regulation
concerning animal by-products (Finnish Food Safety Authority). The by-product
regulation in particular affects waste management in retail stores, because the
waste has to be treated in Evira-approved facilities. Not all the biowaste comes
under the by-product law, but because the facilities in the stores are usually limited
all the biowaste is usually collected in the same bins and needs to be treated
according to the by-product regulation (Salminen, 2011). Depending on the case,
this may increase the costs especially because of the transportation distances and
labour costs. (Lilja & Liukkonen, 2008).

Recycling technologies, systems and services
Recycling depends on the facility that produces the waste, but in general the recy-
clables follow the same flow. Recyclable fractions (biowaste, paper and card-
board, metal, glass, plastic and wood) are source-separated, collected and trans-
ported to the pre-treatment centers. From collection the fractions continue on to
processing, refining and finally to markets as materials or as new products. The
process is usually the same as with MSW, except that biowaste from retail stores
comes under by-product regulations. Also, some recyclables such as plastics are
of better quality than plastic from MSW and therefore are recycled more.
Some proportion of recyclables are also used in energy production. REF (Re-
covered fuel) can be made from mixed waste or from source-separated energy
waste. Without pre-treatment, mixed waste can be transported to landfilling or to
waste incineration, which is usually grate incineration without pre-treatment. Fig-
ure B shows the estimated generation, recycling and disposal of C&I fractions.
Figure C illustrates the composition of incinerated waste.


4/4

Figure B. C&I total generation, recycling, reuse and incineration [t/a].

Figure C. Estimated generation of energy-recovered waste and waste incineration
[t/a].

4/5
Waste generation in Finland
For this research, the data was collected from three main sources and combined.
The waste statistics of Statistics Finland were used, also the statistics provided by
producers responsibility organizations and statistics from HSYs Petra service.
One significant problem was noticeable; statistics are not coherent and it is difficult
to make comparisons.
Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority (HSY) has statistics of ser-
vice sector waste generation, which is called the Petra service (Petra, 2011).
These numbers were used when making the material flow analysis (MFA) of C&I
waste generation. This data was the best available for estimating the share of C&I
from MSW. The statistics are compiled from the capital areas service sector, so
they are not totally applicable to the whole Finland, but some approximation can
be made using them. The statistics for personnel working in the field during 2008
were from Statistics Finland (Statistics Finland, 2008a).
The estimated total waste generation of the C&I sector in one year is about 1
084 000 t (Jokinen, 2005; Petra, 2011; Statistics Finland, 2008a; 2008b).
JLY (2011) estimates that the share of C&I waste of the total annual MSW pro-
duction is about 40%. If the estimated total production is compared to the total
MSW production in Finland in 2008 (2 768 000 t/a), it can be seen that the share
of C&I is 39%, which corresponds with the estimation of JLY (Statistics Finland,
2008b). Figure D presents the total generation of waste from the C&I sector. The
amount is divided into different factions and by source separation. It is estimated
that about 330 000 t of waste ends up in mixed waste. Figure E presents the
amounts of different ways of disposing of mixed waste.

Figure D. Estimated C&I waste generation divided into source separation and
mixed waste [t/a].

4/6

Figure E. Estimated disposal of mixed waste [t/a].
Waste generation in Europe/in some selected countries
The shares of different C&I waste fractions in Finland, Norway and Ireland are
compared in Figure F. The values for Finland were calculated according to earlier
explanations, and values of Norway and Ireland were taken from literature. As can
be seen, the biggest fraction in every country is Paper and cardboard. Biowaste
also has a big share in every country, but in Norway it is the smallest. Construction
and Demolition waste (C&D) was listed only in Finland, which has a minor effect
on the share of other fractions in Finland. In general the main distribution in differ-
ent countries is quite similar.


4/7

Figure F. Share of waste generation in C&I sector in 3 countries (combination of
sources in Christensen et al., 2010; original sources: Skullerud, & Stave, 2002;
EPA IRL, 2003)
Waste generation in the C&I sector is strongly linked to the total sales of the com-
pany, so the generation follows the general economic situation. In the future of
C&I waste the main differences are probably going to be in end use. For example.
biofuel production is a growing trend in Finland and in the future biowaste from
MSW and C&I will be probably also used in that area (Kuittinen & Huttunen, 2009).
New waste legislation cuts the amount of biowaste ending up in landfill and in-
creases the need for proper treatment facilities. Also, demand for increasing the
recycling and reuse rates of waste increases the need for new treatment methods.
Because main recyclables such as paper and cardboard are already well recycled
in Finland, the main increase in recycling is probably in plastics and biowaste.
Probably the main treatment method for waste that is not easily recycled is incin-
eration.

References

Christensen, T. H. & Fruergaard, T. 2010. Commercial and Institutional Waste.
[book auth.] T. H. Christensen. Solid Waste Technology & Management: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
EPA IRL 2003. National waste database report 2001. Environmental Protection
Agency Ireland.
EU 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives.

4/8
FGTA 2003. Pivittistavarakauppa ja ymprist. Katsaus pivittistavarakaupan
ympristvaikutuksiin vuonna 2003 (in Finnish). Finnish Grocery Trade Associati-
on.
Jokinen, V. 2005. Pkaupunkiseudun palvelualojen sekajtteen laatu. Pkau-
punkiseudun julkaisusarja C, 2005:1. YTV Jtehuolto, Helsinki.
Kaila, J., Paavilainen, J., Kojo, R,, Penttil, M. & Karhu, H. 2006. Jtehuollon
jrjestminen kunnan nkkulmasta Omistajaohjauksessa huomioon otettavia
asioita. The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. P. 95.
Koivisto, J. 2012. CEO, HFT Network Oy. [interv.] Johanna Laaksonen. Helsinki,
March 19, 2012.
Koivuniemi, L. & Rintala, P. 2012. Suomen Lhikauppa Oy. [interv.] Johanna
Laaksonen. Helsinki, March 19, 2012.
Kuittinen, V. & Huttunen, M.J. 2009. Suomen biokaasulaitosrekisteri n:o 12; tiedot
vuodelta 2008 (in Finnish). University of Joensuu, Reports of Ecological Research
Institute N:o 5.
Lilja, R. & Liukkonen, S. 2008. Selvitys kaupan entisi elintarvikkeita koskevien
sdsvaihtoehtojen taloudellisista ja ympristvaikutuksista Loppuraportti.
Ekoleima. Final report. s.l.: Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
Pelin, T. 2012. Environmental and Safety Manager, Keslog Ltd. [interv.] Johanna
Laaksonen. March 15, 2012.
Petra 2011. Petra Waste Benchmarking. HSY, Helsinki Region Environmental
Services Authority, [Cited: November 20, 2011.] http://www.hsy.fi/petra.
Salminen, T. 2011. Environmental Manager, SOK. E-mail communication, Febru-
ary 1516, 2011.
Skullerud, . & Stave, S. E. 2002. Waste generation in the service indsutry sector
in Norway 1999, Report 2002/24. Statistics Norway, Oslo.
Statistics Finland 2008a. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF), Regional and indus-
trial statistics on services. Statistics Finland. [Cited: November 29, 2011.]
http://www.stat.fi/til/pata/indes.html.
Statistics Finland 2008b. Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT), Jtetilasto, Yhdyskunta-
jtteet vuonna 2008. Statistics Finland (in Finnish). [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.stat.fi/til/jate/2008/jate_2008_2009-12-16_tau_001_fi.html

5/1
MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) covers waste from households as well as similar
waste from commerce and trade, garden waste, street sweepings and the con-
tents of litter containers (Finnish Legislation 1129/2001; OECD, 2010). MSW
treatment consists of seven individual process chains for the separate waste frac-
tions (mixed (including plastics), metals, glass, paper, cardboard, bio, wood and
REF/energy). These fractions can be partly mixed together or separated, depend-
ing on the waste management system. Sorting is assumed to be carried out in
households or at sorting stations.
Management of MSW is commonly the responsibility of the municipalities; this
includes collection and treatment as well as administrative duties and monitoring.
The customers of MSW management are mainly households and property owners.
The waste producer is seen as responsible for the waste, and property owners
must organise a waste collection point enabling separate collection of certain
waste fractions. In Finland, the waste management services are highly out-
sourced; private environmental management companies cover a wide range of
services, such as waste collection and transport, utilisation, recycling and treat-
ment, as well as customer and advisory services, reporting, and invoicing. Figure
A illustrates the MSW waste chain for recycling. The MSW management chain
consists of three main steps: generation (including collection and transport), pro-
cessing (including disposal), as well as utilisation of the recycled materials. The
produced MSW has to be collected (possible separate collection) and stored be-
fore transport to further processing or final disposal. The further processing gener-
ally includes mechanical and/or biological processing and further refining or utiliza-
tion as material or as fuel in energy production. In all steps some rejects are gen-
erated.


5/2

Figure A. The MSW cycle containing generation, processing and utilisation.
The MSW generation of a nation is commonly interconnected to its wealth; as a
country develops, its waste generation increases, to slowly decrease when a cer-
tain level of prosperity is reached. As illustrated in Figure B, these statistics for
Finland show that there has been a clear trend towards coupling of economy and
waste production. In Finland, the production of municipal waste has increased
over the last 30 years following economic trends; an increase in GDP shows a
clear increase in waste, and economic downturns can be seen as clear drops in
MSW production. (YTV, 2008; Troschinetz & Mihelcic, 2009)

Figure B. The interconnection between MSW and GDP in Finland during the
years 19752009 (YTV, 2008; Statistics Finland 2011a; 2011b).

5/3
The average annual MSW generation per capita in Finland is approximately 500
kg, of which household waste makes up approximately 60%, and C&I the remain-
ing 40%. The largest MSW fractions in 2008 were mixed waste (59%), paper
waste (14%), biowaste (11%), wood waste (3%), energy waste (3%) and glass
waste (3%). Figure C presents the annual municipal waste production in Finland
for the last reported years. MSW treatment in Finland is still based mainly on land-
filling of mixed waste, although paper, glass and metals are rather efficiently sepa-
rated and recycled. Biowaste separation is rather common and steadily increasing.
During the past, a decrease in landfilling and an increase in recycling and espe-
cially incineration has been seen. (Statistics Finland, 2011a; Espo, 2011)

Figure C. Total municipal waste collected in Finland 20072008 [t/a] (Statistics
Finland, 2011a; Espo 2011).
Recycling technologies, systems and services
There are alternative collection applications for the collection and transport of
waste. Waste is mainly transported by different type of vehicles, although over
shorter distances it can be transported in pipelines. These automated waste col-
lection systems are not yet common. The collection points for different fractions
can be located at drop-off stations or at the properties waste collection points
(kerbside collection). The collection system greatly affects operational costs but
also recycling efficiency, as kerbside collection is more expensive but facilitates
on-site sorting. (Kogler, 2007.)


5/4
Table A. MSW collection systems.

MSW processing consists mainly of mechanical unit processes, including size
reduction, size control and mechanical separation processes. The use of monitor-
ing and detection technologies for the identification of various waste fractions and
impurities or for quality control of produced materials is still relatively unusual.
Most of the waste fractions have quality requirements, as contaminations can be
bad for the further processes e.g. damaging machinery or lowering the quality of
the product.
Metals make up for approximately 4% of the MSW, of which approxi-
mately 50% is sorted for recycling. Separately collected metals are
shredded and fed into magnetic separation, where approximately 51%
(mainly iron) of the feed is removed. The remaining metals are separated
based on their densities. Aluminium makes up around 13% and other
metals comprise approximately 28% of the input. The remaining 8% is re-
jects. Metal scrap is the commercially most important waste stream. It
can be melted down and reused to produce new metal products, as the
material will not degrade during the recycling process. The metal industry
has quality requirements for scrap metals, as the quality is vital for the
processing.
Glass makes up approximately 5% of the MSW, of which approximately
60% is sorted for recycling. The glass fraction is first shredded and then
sorted by colour (55% green, 20% dead leaf, 20% transparent and
5%brown). In theory glass can be recycled forever whilst retaining its
chemical and physical properties. However, contaminations prevent glass
from being recycled in glass production, which is why glass scrap is
mainly recycled as e.g. glass wool and foam glass.
Paper and cardboard makes up approximately 25% of the MSW, of which
approximately 60% is sorted for recycling. Paper and cardboard are re-
cycled either as raw materials for paper and cardboard production or as a
fuel in energy production.
Collection Kerbside Drop-off
Mi xed X X
Paper X
Cardboard X X
Gl ass X X
Metal s X X
Bio-waste X
Energy waste X X
Wood X
Hazardous waste X

5/5
The separately collected paper is first mixed with water producing a pulp,
which is deinked using flotation, producing approximately 20% rejects of
inks and other impurities. The rejects are incinerated. The pulp is washed
and precipitated before recycling. Approximately 52% of the recycled pa-
per is utilized in paper production.
The collected cardboard and fluid packages are shredded and the fibre is
separated. The reject (5%) consists of aluminium, plastic and other impu-
rities, and is incinerated. Approximately 52% of the recycled cardboard is
utilized in cardboard production.
Organic waste (mainly food waste but also wood, paper, cardboard, plas-
tics, textiles etc.) makes up approximately 35% of the MSW, which
when landfilled decompose, generating greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and methane (CH
4
). Treatment of organic waste
reduces greenhouse gas emissions and facilitates recycling. Organic
waste can be treated either through composting or through anaerobic di-
gestion. The product can be used as a fertiliser or soil amendment.
o Composting refers to a biodegradation process in aerobic condi-
tions.
o Anaerobic digestion is a multi-
step process where microbes
break up organic matter, forming
methane which can be used as
a fuel.
Wood makes up approximately 5% of
MSW, of which approximately 64% is
sorted for recycling. The collected wood
is shredded, after which it is utilized as
energy (a minor part of the wood is used
in material recycling).
Approximately 7% of MSW is processed
to produce REF, which can include,
among other things, mixed MSW and
separately collected energy waste. REF
is used for energy utilization. The feed is
shredded and the magnetic metals are
separated from the feed using a magnetic
separator. Then the waste stream is
sieved and the larger fraction (appr. 55%)
is further processed with air separation.
The light fraction (appr. 50% of total input)
is finally fed into an eddy current which
separates aluminium (appr. 0,5% of total
input) from the light fraction to further re-
fine the REF. (See Figure D)
Figure D. Flow sheet of
REF production

5/6
References

Espo, J. 2011. Discussion about waste statistics. JanFeb 2011.
Eurostat 2011. Treatment of municipal waste. [Cited: March 24, 2011.]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastemanagement/
waste_treatment
Finnish Legislation 1129/2001. Ympristministerin asetus yleisimpien jtteiden
sek ongelmajtteiden luettelosta (in Finnish).
Frost & Sullivan 2006. Strategic Analysis of the Western European Municipal
Waste Management Services Market. Market report.
Kogler, T. 2007. Waste collection. [Cited: November 20, 2012.]
http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/ctt_2007_2.pdf OECD 2010.
OECD Factbook 2010. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment. [Cited: November 20, 2012] http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/
factbook-2010-en

Waste generation in Europe
European municipal waste has previously mainly been landfilled, but recovey of it is
increasing. Of the total waste generated in the EU in 2009, 38% was landfilled, 24% was
recycled, 18 % was composted and 20 % incinerated (with or without energy recovery).
However, there are substantial differences between countries and regions; Bulgaria had
100 % landfilling, whereas the landfilling rate in Germany was negligible. The develop-
ment of waste management in Europe is illustrated in the figure below. European waste
volumes are continuously increasing, it is estimated that the MSW generation will in-
crease by 25% between 2005 and 2020 in EU-25. However, the growth rate is slowly
diminishing and soon the waste volumes may also diminish. (Eurostat, 2011; (Frost &
Sullivan, 2006)

The development of the waste management in Europe during 19952009 (Eurostat, 2011).

5/7
Statistics Finland 2011a. Jtetilasto. [Cited: November 21,2012.] http://www.tilas
tokeskus.fi/til/jate/index.html
Statistics Finland 2011b. Kansantalous. [Cited: November 21, 2012.] http://www.
tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kansantalous.html
Troschinetz A. & J. Mihelcic. 2009. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste
in developing countries. Waste Management, 29, pp. 916923.
YTV 2008. Pkaupunkiseudun kotitalouksien sekajtteen mr ja laatu vuonna
2007 (in Finnish). YTV Pkaupunkiseudun yhteistyvaltuuskunta. [Cited: No-
vember 20, 2012.] http://www.hsy.fi/jatehuolto/Documents/Julkaisut/sekajatetut
kimus_2007.pdf


5/8


6/1
Waste generation
The amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE, is constantly
growing, and is probably the fastest growing waste stream in the EU, producing
8.39.1 million tonnes in 2005, and the amount is expected to grow to roughly
12.3 million tonnes of WEEE by 2020. Waste electrical and electronic equipment
also consists of a large amount and variety of recyclable materials, some of which
are valuable, as well as a considerable variety of hazardous materials. (Trn et al.,
2010.)
In Finland, the trend is similar. Data for statistics on WEEE generation has
been collected systematically since 2005 when the EU WEEE-directive was put
into force. Amounts of WEEE-products collected in Finland are found in Eurostat
WEEE -key statistics. Both the amounts of electrical and electronic devices put
onto the market as well as the amounts collected are growing steadily as is shown
in Figure A. (Eurostat, 2008.)

Figure A. EEE and WEEE in Finland development 20052008.
WEEE characteristics and material composition
Waste electrical and electronic equipment originates from households and indus-
try. WEEE is a very versatile waste fraction and includes a vast variety of different
items. They are divided into 10 categories, with several products in each category.
(Directive 2002/96/EC)


6/2

These categories are defined by the type of product or the intended use of the
product, and not by the type of material composition of the items or plausible simi-
lar treatment options, which would be more logical from a waste management
viewpoint.
The estimated material composition of WEEE collected, according to United
Nations University (2007) is shown in Figure B. The composition is very versatile.
Depending on the source, and the individual samples of WEEE used in the re-
search, there may be considerable differences in the overall composition. (Free-
gard & Claes, 2009; Gramatyka et al., 2007)

WEEE categories (Directive 2002/96/EC):
Category 1 Large Household Appliances
This category covers appliances such as refrigerators and freezers, as well as other
large appliances like washing machines, ovens, etc.
Category 2 Small Household Appliances
This category covers all smaller household appliances such as vacuum cleaners, irons,
toasters, etc.
Category 3 IT and Telecommunications Equipment
This category covers computers (desktop and laptop) as well as e.g. printers, copiers
and telephones.
Category 4 Consumer Equipment
This category covers e.g. televisions, video recorders and DVD players, video cameras
and radios
Category 5 Lighting Equipment
Category 6 Electrical and Electronic Tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary
industrial tools)
This category covers: drills, saws, sewing machines, and tools for gardening or rDIY,
etc.
Category 7 Toys, Leisure and Sports Equipment
This category includes i.e. electric trains or car racing sets, hand-held video game con-
soles, video games, and computers for biking, diving, running, rowing, etc.,
Category 8 Medical Devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products)
Category 9 Monitoring and Control Instruments, e.g.smoke detectors, heating regula-
tors, and thermostats,
Category 10 Automatic Dispensers

6/3

Figure B. Material composition of WEEE collected (United Nations University,
2007)
In this research, the focus has been on the treatment of two types of WEEE, high
value WEEE and low value WEEE, according to their characteristics as waste,
not according to category. High value products are found mainly in category 3 IT
and Telecommunications Equipment but also some in category 4 Consumer
Equipment can be considered to be high value or at least medium value. Typical
high value products are computers, CD or DVD players and mobile phones. Alt-
hough included in categories 3 and 4, computer screens and televisions are not
considered to be high value WEEE. Also, products in these categories that do not
have printed circuit boards or the printed circuit boards are small or do not contain
valuable materials (i.e. keyboards or printers) are not high value products. Most of
the value in high value products lies in the valuable metals of the printed circuit
boards.
Low value products are mostly found in category 2 Small Household Appli-
ances, but also in category 6 Electrical and Electronic Tools. These products
consist mainly of different plastics, iron, steel, aluminium, some copper but have
no or very small amounts of valuable metals. In category 7 both high and low
value items can be found.
In Figures C and D the material composition of a typical high value product
(personal computer) and low value product (coffee machine) can be compared.
Figure 3C shows a rough distribution of the material composition of a PC. The
predominant materials are ferrous metals and composite materials. Composite
materials refers to interconnected metals and plastics, and other complex assem-
blies of materials. A relatively large percentage (9%) of the total mass comes from
the printed circuit board of a computer.

6/4
Figure D shows a rough distribution of the material composition of a coffee ma-
chine. In the case of a coffee machine, plastic is the predominant material, but
fairly large amounts of metals (non-ferrous 10% and ferrous 8%) and cable (12%)
are also found. The circuit board represents only 0.3% of the mass of a coffee
machine and is not even visible in the pie chart. (Chancerel & Rotter, 2009)

Figure C. Material composition of a PC.

Figure D. Material composition of a coffee machine.
General description of value chain
According to EU legislation, producers are responsible for collection and recycling
of these products, and collection, reuse and recycling targets have been set.
(COM(2008) 810 final, Directive 2002/96/EC)
Statistics on reuse and recycling are collected separately for each EU member
state. Table A shows the waste electrical and electronic equipment put on the

6/5
market and collected, as well as reuse and recycling rates in Finland for 2008 in
each category. Here the reuse and recycling rates are calculated on the amount
recovered of the collected amounts and are therefore fairly large. The actual
amounts of WEEE arising are difficult to estimate. There is still a large amount of
WEEE which does not enter the collection system.
Table A. Statistics on WEEE recovery reuse and recycling in Finland 2008 (Euro-
stat, 2008).

According to the United Nations University (2007), the collection rates depending
on category vary between 16.3% and 65.2%. Also, both the collected amounts
and collection rates differ between different countries.
The expectation of a growing amount of WEEE in the future is based on the
growth of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market (at present) in
combination with the expected lifespan of each product. The lifespan of different
products as well as that for the different categories varies. For computer products
the average time in use is 56 years. This explains the fact that the amounts put
on the market are much larger than the collected amounts. (Eurostat, 2008)
Even though legislation recommends reuse before recycling, only a very small
amount of the WEEE is collected for reuse purposes. In reality, the amount of
WEEE reused is a little larger; this is due to devices handed on to relatives or
friends when purchasing new ones. These handed-down items never enter the
system for collected products, and therefore do not appear in the statistics. (Igna-
tius et al., 2009.)
In Finland, most producers are organised into producer responsibility organisa-
tions (PROs), in order to cooperate in arranging collection and treatment. In prac-
tice, the collection is mostly arranged through municipal waste management com-
panies, at waste stations, alongside the collection of other waste fractions and
recyclables. Also some shops where EEE devices are sold accept returned devic-
es. Some WEEE is sorted at source and some is delivered unsorted to the recy-
cling companies.
Product category
Products put
on the
market
Waste
collected
Recovery
(tonnes)
Recovery
rate (%)
Reuse and
recycling
(tonnes)
Reuse and
recycling
rate (%)
Reused as
whole
appliances
(tonnes)
1 Large household appliances 68550 26643 23614 89 22378 84 132
2 Small household appliances 6583 1745 1358 78 1341 77 12
3 IT and telecommunications equipment 31039 11647 10363 89 9816 84 129
4 Consumer equipment 12644 12293 9771 79 9539 78 86
5 Lighting equipment 12793 281 227 80 223 79 10
5a Gas discharge lamps 1801 982 n/a n/a 850 87 0
6 Electrical and electronic tools 10656 401 307 76 304 76 2
7 Toys, leisure and sports equipment 3646 17 16 91 14 80 1
8 Medical devices 4871 21 19 90 19 90 0
9 Monitoring and control instruments 9191 53 45 84 40 75 1
10 Automatic dispensers 821 544 499 92 498 92 8
Total amounts 162595 54627 46219 85 45022 82 381

6/6
Recycling companies process the collected products, separating materials and
components for recycling. Recycled materials are utilized as raw materials in pro-
duction. (Ignatius et al., 2009) The cycle of WEEE products is visualized in Figure E.

Figure E. The WEEE cycle.
The different materials obtained have different values, and the value also varies
depending on the purity of the material obtained in the process. A desirable out-
come would be to maximise the value and minimise the processing costs.

References

Chancerel, P. & Rotter, S. 2009. Recycling-oriented characterization of small
waste electrical and electronic equipment; Waste Management, 29, 23362352.
COM(2008) 810 final 2008/0241 (COD). Proposal for a directive of the European
Parliament and of the council on waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) (Recast).
Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 Janu-
ary 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

6/7
Eurostat 2008. WEEE key statistics and data: WEEE year 2008. [Cited: March 30,
2011.] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/key_waste
_streams/waste_electrical_electronic_equipment_weee
Freegard, K. & Claes, M. 2009 Compositional Analysis of Kerbside Collected
Small WEEE. Axion Recycling Ltd.
Gramatyka P., Nowosielski R., Sakiewicz P. 2007. Recycling of waste electrical
and electronic equipment, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufactur-
ing Engineering, 20(12).
Ignatius, S., Myllymaa, T. & Dahlbo, H. 2009. Shk- ja elektroniikkaromun ksit-
tely Suomessa. Suomen ympristkeskuksen raportteja 20/2009 (in Finnish).
[Cited: November 20, 2012] http://www.ymparisto.fi/syke/julkaisut
Trn, M., Laaksonen, J. & Heiskanen, J. 2010. Value chain approach to WEEE
management. EcoBalance, November 912, 2010. Tokyo, Japan. The Institute of
Life Cycle Assessment Japan.
United Nations University 2007. 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Elec-
trical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Final Report.


6/8


7/1
This summary report is an overview of End-of-Life vehicles (ELVs): waste genera-
tion, relevant fractions and recycling technologies, system and services. The basis
of the work is available data: reports and databases of the participating research
institutes, the data produced by the participating industrial partners and other
stakeholders as well as published literature.

Waste generation
In 2007 about 73 million vehicles were produced worldwide. Compared to about
38 million vehicles produced in 1980, the worldwide production of cars has grown
steadily over the past decades despite a dip in 20082009 due the economic
crisis. (Vermeulen et al., 2011) About 35 million vehicles enter the recycle infra-
structure each year: in Northern America, the number of vehicles is about 13 mil-
lion; in Western Europe, 11 million; in Japan, 5 million; the balance comes from
the others. (Daniels, 2007) Five Member States (Germany, UK, France, Spain
and) are responsible for approximately 75% of EU25 deregistration. A number of
certificates of destruction (CODs), 64 851, were issued in 2011 in Finland and
about 54 634 CODs in 2010 (Finnish Car Recycling, 2012a).
As a result of the stringent landfill legislation and the objectives and legislation
related to ELV treatment in various countries, the treatment and disposal of ELVs
has become a real challenge (Vermeulen et al., 2011). Every year, ELVs generate
between 8 and 9 million tons of waste in the Community (European Commission,
2012a).
The projection in Figure A shows that the number of ELVs for the EU25 is likely
to increase by 45% between 2005 and 2030. Taking into account the mass of
export of used cars, which is about 2 million, it may be expected that by 2030 the
total mass of ELVs generated per year in the EU25 will reach 1417 million
tonnes. (Vermeulen et al., 2011)


7/2

Figure A. Projected number of End-of-Life vehicles in the period 20052030 for
the EU member states without Romania and Bulgaria (EU25), for the older EU
countries (EU15) and for the new EU countries (EU10) (Vermeulen et al., 2011)
Different management methods are currently available, even if not all of them
allow the achievement of the new European targets, defined by Directive
2000/53/EC
1
. In order to reach the Directives targets
2
, by 2015, 95% of an ELV
should be recovered; including 10% waste to energy, of which 85% is recycled or
reused respectively. According to Sakkas and Manios (2003): The core problem
behind the disputes with regard to the Directive is the high cost of the extra recy-
cling required to reach the targets it sets.

Relevant fractions
Ferrous metals, which are mainly composed of iron and have magnetic properties,
are the main component of an ELV (Bureau of International Recycling, 2012a).
ELVs also contain non-ferrous metals, such as aluminium, copper, lead, zinc, and
nickel (Bureau of International Recycling, 2012b). Figure B shows that currently
about 75% of an ELVs total weight is recyclable. The remaining 25% is called
Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR or SR) or car fluff. In Europe ASR is classified
as hazardous waste due to its heterogeneous composition and heavy metal con-
tent. (Vermeulen et al., 2011) ASR is made of plastic (1931%), rubber (20%),

1
Parliament adopted the Amendment of the Waste Act (452/2004) on June 4, 2004, by
which producer liability regulations were introduced into Finnish legislation. The government
for its part adopted the End-of-Life Vehicle Degree (581/2004) on June 23, 2004. The EU
Directive on End-of-life Vehicles (2000/53/EC) was implemented through these regulations.
The legislation came into force on September 1, 2004. It covers passenger cars, vans and
special-purpose vehicles such as recreational vehicles. (Finnish Car Recycling, 2012b)
2
The recycling and recovery rate of End-of-Life Vehicles is the most relevant data because
of the reporting requirements and targets set out in the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive (Eu-
ropean Commission, 2011).

7/3
textiles and fibre materials (1042%) and wood (25%), which are contaminated
with metals (8%), oils (5%), and other substances, some of which may be hazard-
ous (about 10%), e.g. PCB, cadmium and lead. (Nourreddine, 2007) The standard
method of ASR disposal has been landfilling, now limited by the stringent legisla-
tion and the objectives/legislation related to ELV treatment of various countries.
(Vermeulen et al., 2011)

Figure B. Average material content of ELV (data source: Finnish Car Recycling,
2012c).
Recycling technologies, system and services
On a new vehicle, for which component parts, material or both can be taken into
account, the calculation of the recyclability and recoverability rates are carried out
using four main steps illustrated in Figure C: Depollution, dismantling, metals
separation and non-metallic residue treatment (ISO 22628:2002).
Depollution concerns about 3% in weight of ELV materials.It involves the re-
moval batteries, fluids, heavy metals containing components, or potentially explo-
sive elements (e.g. airbags). (Morselli et al., 2010.)

7/4
Dismantling consists of the removal of valuable parts and materials which can
be re-used or recycled (e.g. glass, metallic components containing aluminium,
magnesium, copper, rubber and plastic elements). The weight percentage of the
parts removed depends on the dismantling plant: values range from 9% for old
(natural) ELVs to 47% for new (premature, e.g. damaged) ones (Morselli et al.,
2010). Certain other of the vehicles reusable or recyclable component parts may
be taken into account. Based on the general requirement, component parts shall
be considered as reusable, recyclable or both (dismantling based on its accessibil-
ity, fastening technology and proven dismantling technologies). As a specific re-
quirement, a component part shall be considered as recyclable, based on its ma-
terial composition, and proven recycling technologies. In order to be recyclable, a
component part or material shall be linked to a proven recycling technology. An
additional requirement is that the reusability of a component part shall be subject
to the consideration of safety and environmental hazards. (ISO 22628:2002.)
Materials from de-pollution and dismantling (in tonnes per year) of ELV arising in
Finland is shown Figure D.

Figure C. ELV depollution and dismantling scheme. (Morselli et al., 2010.)


7/5

Figure D. Materials from de-pollution and dismantling (in tonnes per year) of End-
of-Life vehicles in Finland 20082009 (data source: European Commission,
2012c).
All metals, ferrous and non-ferrous, which have not already been accounted for in
the previous processes will be taken into account in Metals separation. Both fer-
rous and non-ferrous metals are considered recyclable: 72% for ferrous products
and 13% separated non-ferrous product (ISO 22628:2002) (Forton et. al., 2006;
Redin et al., 2010). Materials from shredding (in tonnes per year) of ELVs arising
in Finland are shown in Figure E.
The other materials remaining constitute the non-metallic residue. At this step,
the residual non-metallic recyclable materials or both these materials and the
residual non-metallic recoverable materials may be taken into account. Light frac-
tion fluff, size > 30 mm, represents about 50% of the total ASR or SR stream (ap-
proximately 25% of an ELV). Considering only the coarse and oversize fraction,
typically 40% can potentially be recovered (i.e. 20% of total ASR or 5% of an ELV)
(Forton et al., 2006; Redin et. al., 2010).
Under evaluation by both car producer and recycling companies at this time,
great innovations are expected in the next years, i.e. concerning material separa-
tion enhancement, thermo-chemical conversion (gasification and pyrolysis) and
recycling/recovery routes of the residue. (Vermeulen et al., 2011) Possible upgrad-
ing by secondary recovery techniques can produce a fuel grade or filler grade
ASR (the application in waste-to-energy plants, in cement kilns or in metallurgical
processes is possible with limitations). The ASR quantities are likely to increase in
the coming years due to the growing number of cars being scrapped and the in-
crease in the amount of plastics used in car production. (Morselli et al., 2010)

7/6

Figure E. Materials from shredding (in tonnes per year) of end-of-life vehicle in
Finland 20082009 (data source: European Commission, 2012d).
General description of the value chain
The ELV value chain (Figure F) consists of three main steps: generation (including
collection, transport and storage), processing and utilisation of the recycled mate-
rials. The further processing generally includes mechanical and/or chemical pro-
cessing and further refining or utilization as a material or as a fuel in energy pro-
duction. In all the steps some rejects are generated. The value chain of End-of-
Life vehicle management (ELVM) comprises a number of business entities involv-
ing one or more aspects of ELVM management processing. (Sakkas & Manios,
2003.)

7/7
Figure F. The End-of-Life vehicle value chain containing generation, processing
and utilisation.

References

Bureau of International Recycling 2012a. The Industry, Ferrous Metals. Bureau of
International Recycling. 2012. [Cited: April 4, 2012.]
http://www.bir.org/industry/ferrous-metals
Bureau of International Recycling 2012b. The Industry, Non-Ferrous Metals. Bu-
reau of International Recycling. 2012. [Cited: April 4, 2012.]
http://www.bir.org/industry/non-ferrous-metals

Daniels, E. 2007. U.S. Government/industry Collaboration for Sustainable End-of-
Live Vehicle Recycling. 2010. [Cited: November 21, 2012.] http://www.sae.
org/events/gim/presentations/2007daniels.pdf
EU 2000. Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
end-of life vehicles (ELV).


7/8
European Commission 2011. Environmental Data Centre on Waste, End-of-life
Vehicles (ELVs), Re-use and Recovery Rate. Eurostat. [Cited: November 8, 2011.]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestreams/elvs

European Commission 2012a. Environment, Waste, End-of-Life Vehicles. [Cited:
March 19, 2012.] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm
European Commission 2012b. Environmental Data Centre on Waste, End-of-life
Vehicles (ELVs), Re-use and recovery rate, Materials from de-pollution and dis-
mantling (in tonnes per year) of end-of-life vehicles arising in the Member State
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestreams/elvs.
European Commission 2012c. Environmental Data Centre on Waste, End-of-life
Vehicles (ELVs), Re-use and Recovery Rate, Materials from shredding (in tonnes
per year) of end-of-life vehicles arising in the Member State and treated within the
Member State. Eurostat. [Cited: March 21, 2012.]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestreams/elvs
Finnish Car Recycling 2012a. Press release. New record in in car recycling in
2012 (17.2.2012). Finnish Car Recycling Ltd. [Cited: March 21, 2012.] http://www.
autokierratys.fi/Ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet.aspx?kieli=en-US
Finnish Car Recycling 2012b. Consumers, Recycling system, Recycling legisla-
tion. Finnish Car Recycling Ltd. [Cited: March 21, 2012.]
http://www.autokierratys.fi/Kuluttajille/Artikkeli.aspx?julkaisuID=7445
Finnish Car Recycling 2012c. Consumers, Recycling system, Recyclable materi-
als. Finnish Car Recycling Ltd. [Cited: March 26, 2012.]

Finnish legislation 452/2004. Laki jtelain muuttamisesta. (The law on amendment
of the Waste Act, In Finnish). [Cited March 2012]. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/
laki/alkup/2004/20040452.

Forton, O.T., Harder, M.K. & Moles, N.R. 2006. Value from shredder waste: On-
going limitations in the UK. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
46(2006), pp. 104113.
ISO 22628:2002. Road vehicle Recyclability and recoverability Calculation
method. International Organization for Standardization.
Morselli, L., Santini, A., Passarini, F. & Vasura, I. 2010. Automotive shredder resi-
due (ASR) characterization for a valuable management. Journal of Waste Man-
agement, 30(2010), pp. 22282234.

7/9
Nourreddine, M. 2007. Recycling of auto shredder residue. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, A139(2007), pp. 481490.
Redin, L., Hjelt, M. & Marklund, S. 2010. Co-combustion of shredder residues and
municipal solid waste in a Swedish municipal solid waste incinerator. Journal of
Waste Management & Research, 19(2001), pp. 518525.
Sakkas, N. & Manios, T. 2003. End-of-Life vehicle management in areas of low
technology sophistication. A case study in Greece. Bus. Strat. Env., 12(2003), pp.
313325.
Vermeulen, I., Van Caneghem, J., Block, C. B. (Chantal B.), Baeyens, J. &
Vandecasteele, C. 2011. Automotive shredder residue (ASR): Reviewing its pro-
duction from end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and its recycling, energy or chemicals
valorisation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 190(2011), pp. 827.


7/10

Series title and number
VTT Technology 60
Title
recycling
Author(s) Malin Meinander & Ulla-Maija Mroueh (Eds.), J ohn Bacher, J utta Laine-Ylijoki,
Margareta Wahlstrm, J ohannes J ermakka, Nina Teirasvuo, Hannele Kuosa, Maria
Trn, J ohanna Laaksonen, J ukka Heiskanen, J uha Kaila, Hanna Vanhanen, Hele-
na Dahlbo, Kaarina Saramki, Timo J outtijrvi, Tuomas Mattila, Risto Retkin, Pirke
Suoheimo, Katja Lhtinen, Susanna Sironen, J aana Sorvari, Tuuli Myllymaa, J ouni
Havukainen, Mika Horttanainen, and Mika Luoranen
Abstract
project has been to create a understanding of the future development needs of
waste recycling and management by carrying out an in-depth analysis of five se-
lected waste value chains. The chains analysed were:
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste
Commercial and industrial waste (C&I)
Household waste / municipal solid waste (MSW)
Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
End-of-Life vehicles (ELV).
The main emphasis is on the analysis of the five waste chains; including technolo-
gies, material utilisation and losses, as well as environmental and economic anal-
yses of the current systems. The current and future requirements of the Finnish
operational and business environment are also studied. The findings of the project
are to be applicable in the planning and implementation of future development
projects, as well as in decision making by various actors in the sector.
The main methodologies used in this study were literature reviews, data collec-
tion, interviews and waste chain modelling; material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle
assessment (LCA) focusing on climate impacts and resource use and life cycle
cost analysis (LCC). Value formation was studied in WEEE and ELV chains.
The operational environment in the waste management chains is affected by
various environmental and other policies and regulations, demand and supply as
well as raw material prices. Cultural aspects and peoples attitudes are also im-
portant, especially because the waste market will be increasingly global.
The stricter recycling targets are expected to affect product eco-design and de-
velopment of innovations in the field. Increased recycling calls for systemic thinking
and improved waste chain management with more efficient processes and tech-
nologies. Integrated modelling concepts and analysis of future scenarios are need-
ed for an analysis of the economic viability of the recycling solutions. Development
of new presorting and pretreatment concepts could, for example, improve both the
quality and quantity of products. Management of the whole treatment chain calls for
real-time monitoring methods integrated with on-line quality control.
ISBN, ISSN ISBN 978-951-38-7893-1 (URL: http://www.vtt.fi/publications/index.jsp)
Date December 2012
Language English, Finnish abstract
Pages 86 p. +app. 80 p.
Name of the project NeReMa Advanced Solutions for Recycling of Complex and New Materials
Keywords
Waste chain management, material flow analysis, LCA, commercial and industrial
waste, municipal waste, construction and demolition waste, waste electrical and
electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles, future development
Publisher VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland, Tel. 020 722 111

J ulkaisun sarja ja numero
VTT Technology 60
Nimeke
Kestvn kierrtyksen tulevaisuuden kehityssuuntia
Tekij(t) Malin Meinander & Ulla-Maija Mroueh (Eds.), J ohn Bacher, J utta Laine-Ylijoki,
Margareta Wahlstrm, J ohannes J ermakka, Nina Teirasvuo, Maria Trn, J ohanna
Laaksonen, J ukka Heiskanen, J uha Kaila, Hanna Vanhanen, Helena Dahlbo, Kaarina
Saramki, Timo J outtijrvi, Tuomas Mattila, Risto Retkin, Pirke Suoheimo, Katja Lhtinen,
Susanna Sironen, J aana Sorvari, Tuuli Myllymaa, J ouni Havukainen, Mika Horttanainen,
and Mika Luoranen
Tiivistelm
Tss julkaisussa esitetn tutkimusprojektin Advanced Solutions for Recycling of Comp-
lex and New Materials tuloksia ja johtoptksi. Hankkeen tavoitteena oli luoda ksitys
jtehuollon tulevaisuuden kehitystarpeista syventymll viiteen jteketjuun:
Rakennus- ja purkujte (C&D)
Kaupan ja teollisuuden jtteet (C&I)
Kotitalousjte / yhdyskuntajte (MSW)
Shk- ja elektroniikkaromu, SER (WEEE)
Romuautot (ELV).
Tutkimuksessa analysoitiin Suomen jte- ja kierrtysalan toimintaketjuja ja -ymprist
tavoitteena luoda ymmrryst tulevaisuuden kehittmistarpeista. Tyss keskityttiin valittu-
jen arvoketjujen nykytilan analyysiin erityisesti seuraavista nkkulmista: teknologiat,
materiaalien hydyntmisasteet ja materiaalihvit sek merkittvimpien ympristvaiku-
tusten ja taloudellisten vaikutusten analyysit. Tuloksia voidaan hydynt tulevaisuuden
suunnittelu- ja kehitysprojekteissa. Ne tukevat mys jte- ja kierrtysalan ptksentekoa.
Tutkimusmenetelmin kytettiin kirjallisuusselvityksi, tiedonkeruuta, haastatteluja sek
arvoketjujen mallinnusmenetelmi: materiaalivirta-analyysit, elinkaarianalyysit keskittyen
erityisesti ilmastovaikutuksiin ja luonnonvarojen kyttn sek elinkaarikustannusten
arviointi esimerkkitapauksessa. Lisksi tarkasteltiin arvonmuodostusta SER- ja WEEE-
ketjuissa.
Kierrtys- ja jtehuoltoalan toimintaympristn vaikuttavat erityisesti lainsdnt, ky-
synnn ja tarjonnan kehittyminen sek materiaalien ja energian hinnat. Mys kulttuurinen
ja asenneymprist on trke, varsinkin kun alan markkinat ovat yh enemmn maailman-
laajuisia. Kuten muillakin aloilla sidosryhmien merkitys on kasvamassa.
Raaka-aineiden hintojen nousun ja tiukkenevien kierrtystavoitteiden voidaan tulevai-
suudessa odottaa johtavan uusien innovaatioiden syntymiseen ja kyttnottoon sek
vhitellen kierrtyst tukevien tuotesuunnittelumenetelmien kehitykseen. Kierrtyksen
tehostaminen edellytt systeemist ajattelua, jtevirtojen hallinnan menetelmien kehitt-
mist sek tehokkaampia erottelu- ja lajitteluteknologioita koko kerys- ja ksittelyketjuun.
Taloudellisten edellytysten arviointiin tarvitaan eri nkkulmia yhdistvi mallinnuskonsep-
teja ja tulevaisuuden skenaarioiden tarkastelua. Tuotteiden saantoa ja laatua voidaan
parantaa mm. kehittmll esilajittelun ja erottelun tehostamiseen uusia konsepteja.
Koko ksittelyketjun ja tuotteen laadun hallitsemiseksi tarvitaan eri virtojen reaaliaikaista
monitorointia yhdistettyn on-line laadunvalvontamenetelmiin.
ISBN, ISSN ISBN 978-951-38-7893-1 (URL: http://www.vtt.fi/publications/index.jsp)
J ulkaisuaika J oulukuu 2012
Kieli Englanti, suomenkielinen tiivistelm
Sivumr 86 s. +liitt. 80 s.
Projektin nimi NeReMa Advanced Solutions for Recycling of Complex and New Materials
Avainsanat
Waste chain management, material flow analysis, LCA, commercial and industrial waste,
municipal waste, construction and demolition waste, waste electrical and electronic
equipment, end-of-life vehicles, future development
J ulkaisija VTT
PL 1000, 02044 VTT, Puh. 020 722 111

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland is a globally networked
multitechnological contract research organization. VTT provides high-end technology
solutions, research and innovation services. We enhance our customers competitiveness,
thereby creating prerequisites for societys sustainable development, employment, and
wellbeing.
Turnover: EUR 300 million
Personnel: 3,200
VTT publications
VTT employees publish their research results in Finnish and foreign scientic journals, trade
periodicals and publication series, in books, in conference papers, in patents and in VTTs
own publication series. The VTT publication series are VTT Visions, VTT Science, VTT
Technology and VTT Research Highlights. About 100 high-quality scientic and profes-
sional publications are released in these series each year. All the publications are released
in electronic format and most of them also in print.
VTT Visions
This series contains future visions and foresights on technological, societal and business
topics that VTT considers important. It is aimed primarily at decision-makers and experts
in companies and in public administration.
VTT Science
This series showcases VTTs scientic expertise and features doctoral dissertations and
other peer-reviewed publications. It is aimed primarily at researchers and the scientic
community.
VTT Technology
This series features the outcomes of public research projects, technology and market
reviews, literature reviews, manuals and papers from conferences organised by VTT. It is
aimed at professionals, developers and practical users.
VTT Research Highlights
This series presents summaries of recent research results, solutions and impacts in
selected VTT research areas. Its target group consists of customers, decision-makers and
collaborators.
V
T
T

T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y

6
0

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

f
u
t
u
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

w
a
s
t
e

r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g

ISBN 978-951-38-7893-1 (URL: http://www.vtt./publications/index.jsp)
ISSN 2242-122X (URL: http://www.vtt./publications/index.jsp)
recycling

This publication summarises the results and conclusions of the research
project Advanced Solutions for Recycling of Complex and New
Materials. The aim of the project has been to create an understanding
of the future development needs of waste recycling and management
by conducting an in-depth analysis of ve selected waste value chains.
The chains analysed were: construction and demolition (C&D) waste,
commercial and industrial waste (C&I), household waste / municipal
solid waste (MSW), waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
and end-of-life vehicles (ELV).
recycling
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
S
C
I
E
N
C
E
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
H
I
G
H
L
I
G
H T S
60

T60

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T60

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

V

You might also like